Gordon Birtwistle: Does my right hon. Gentleman agree that careers advice should start at age 12, be delivered by experienced professional and independent advisers, and be available throughout every year of education?

Vincent Cable: The green economy will make a major contribution in the longer term to economic
	growth, because of the stimulus it provides to demand in green activities. However, energy intensive industries are also an important part of our economy.

John Denham: Actually, the old DTI was merged with my Department. The truth is that in the past year the Office for Budget Responsibility has lowered its growth forecast three times, long-term unemployment has been at its highest since 1997, retail sales are down, construction is in the doldrums and consumer confidence has been at record lows. Is it not the truth that the Business Secretary has wrecked support for the regions, cut consumer protection when prices are raising ahead of wages, talked tough and delivered nothing on bank lending, bungled higher education and produced a growth plan so unconvincing that it is being rewritten as we speak? The Business Secretary is wrong, is he not, to think that his Department cannot make a difference. It could. It is not just the Chancellor who needs a plan B, is it?

Vincent Cable: My colleague the Secretary of State for Health has made it absolutely clear that no resident, whether publicly funded or self-funding, will be left homeless or without care. In other words, the residents will be given priority and the Government have taken the responsibility to ensure that they are protected. As to the company itself, it had a long-standing failed business model. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) has been in touch with the banks to ensure that the their credit is properly managed in this critical period so that it happens in an orderly way. There is no way in which we can bail out the company, but I have asked my officials to look carefully at the business models of companies that provide public services to ensure that they are stable and that the responsible sector regulators are able to act appropriately.

Alison McGovern: One in 10 people in the north-west of England work in manufacturing, whereas just 3% in London work in manufacturing. The sharp fall in the purchasing managers index last month showed that all may not be well with UK manufacturing. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister therefore confirm that UK Trade & Investment will publish annually the regional impact of its work, so that we can be sure that Government policy works for all economies in Britain?

George Young: I understand the anxiety about the coverage of the BBC’s news and Parliament channels. It is a matter for the BBC, and the Government should not become directly involved. I would welcome such a debate and hope that my hon. Friend will make an appropriate bid. The period of the current charter runs until the end of 2016 and there will be a full review as that time draws near, although no date or remit has been set.

Nicola Blackwood: The Safe and Sustainable review that is out to consultation implies that Oxford’s child heart surgery unit will close. Clinicians in Oxford and Southampton, however, have developed a partnership proposal that offers the quality assurance that the Government seek while retaining the accessibility that patients and clinicians fear losing. As Safe and Sustainable, an inherited review, runs the risk of being seen as an imposed reorganisation from above, that proposal seems like exactly the kind of innovative local solution that we want to encourage. May we therefore have a debate on child heart surgery partnerships between trusts in order to assist those making a decision on the Safe and Sustainable recommendations and to encourage such solutions in other parts of the country?

George Young: I hope that my hon. Friend will go the Backbench Business Committee and bid for such a debate. We launched the White Paper a few days ago—the first White Paper for some 20 years, looking ahead for the next 50 years, proposing measures to safeguard and enhance our natural environment and setting out a programme of action for some of the damage that has been done. I should welcome such a debate if chosen by the Backbench Business Committee.

Dominic Grieve: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind words. I appreciate them and I have no doubt that they will be appreciated by all those who have been involved in reviewing this case.
	The hon. Lady raises a number of important points, which I shall do my best to answer. First, I very much hope for the sake of all concerned that this will produce finality, but it is absolutely right that if some new and compelling evidence were to come to light at some point in future that suggests that there might be something wrong in the original inquiry findings, it would of course be possible for the matter to be looked at again, as in the case of any inquest or inquiry. In that sense, there is no bar as a result of the statement that I have made today.
	Secondly, the hon. Lady asked me to explain my legal powers a little. The background is that the inquest process was replaced originally by a decision of Lord Falconer to have an inquiry, pursuant to section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988. That decision was never challenged at the time—somebody could have done so if they had wanted to, and there is no reason whatever to suppose that there was anything improper about the decision. Indeed, as I understood it, the decision marked the
	seriousness with which Lord Falconer took the matter at that time, and it marked his desire to have an inquiry that would be capable of going further in its scope than an inquest, particularly in respect of looking at some of the surrounding circumstances, which an inquest would not be particularly well placed to do.
	Lord Hutton did indeed look at those surrounding circumstances, but they were not really the subject of this review. The review arose from the representations of the memorialist doctors who indicated that they thought that the lack of certainty specifically as to the cause of death was such that I ought to exercise my powers under section 13 of the 1988 Act to make an application to the High Court for the inquest to take place—we may have to face up to the fact that no inquest took place, because it adjourned without being completed.
	I do not wish to get involved in legal technicalities, but those powers are of a slightly technical nature. However, I approached the matter on the basis that if there was an evidential basis for calling into question the inquiry’s findings on the cause of death, I would make such an application, whatever the technical difficulties might be, because of my view that in such circumstances, the Court would be minded at least to find a way to allow the matter to be reinvestigated. That was the basis on which I operated. That we have taken some time and, I must say, a lot of trouble, to look at this matter very carefully is a reflection of the seriousness, in my view, of the allegations that were being made, and of the fact that the allegations were being made by apparently sensible and reasonable people. I am grateful to them for bringing those problems forward.
	That is the basis on which I operated, but having operated in that way and having reviewed all the evidence—the hon. Lady has seen the schedule, which I hope will helpful to hon. Members who go to the Library to look at it—I decided that the evidence was overwhelming that this was a tragic case of suicide, and that suicide caused Dr Kelly’s death for the medical reasons that were correctly identified at the time that the death certificate was made out.

Dominic Grieve: I certainly think that the evidence is clear, and indeed that there is no evidence to the contrary—that point will be quite clear to anybody who looks at the schedule—in the sense that I could see perfectly satisfactory answers to every question that was raised with me, all of which led inexorably to the suicide verdict.
	I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that this will enable us finally to draw a line under the matter. It was clearly a matter of huge and legitimate public concern
	for a variety of reasons, and everything took place in a very difficult political environment. However, I believe that my review and its findings are very clear-cut. This was not a question having to make a balancing decision or coming down on one side or the other. I reviewed all the material, and the outcome is that it is quite clear to me that the original inquiry’s findings were correct.

Tom Harris: May I warmly welcome the Attorney-General’s statement? He will of course know that this will do nothing to discourage the paranoid conspiracy theorists, but on the other hand, they would not change their minds just because of the existence of evidence even if an inquiry went ahead.
	Speaking of paranoid conspiracy theorists, where is the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)? When only last year he told the media that the Hutton inquiry had cut corners, was he speaking on behalf of the Government?

Peter Bottomley: What in my view distinguishes this case from the sad case of Jay Abatan, who died on 29 January 1999—an inquest was held 10 years later, at which new evidence came forward—is that in this case there were no new witnesses or evidence. In relying on the work of Lord Hutton’s team and others, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will accept that those of us who believe that Lord Hutton came to the wrong conclusion on the main
	parts of the inquiry can maintain that belief. If he had come to a different conclusion and used a gentler form of words than “sexed up”—or whatever the expression was, we would have had a near perfect ending to what was a very bad episode in which the previous Government behaved appallingly.

Edward Davey: I would like briefly to take hon. Members back to the Bill’s Third Reading in this House, when I marked the passing of the Bill into the capable hands of the other place by saying that the coalition Government’s decision to take on this difficult issue showed them at their strongest and most radical. As we welcome the Bill back, I would like to add to that and say that the Lords amendments before us today also show government at its most open-minded and collaborative, because they represent the constructive and collective efforts of both sides of the other place to improve and strengthen the Bill. The amendments in this group concern part 1 of the Bill and the provisions for the ownership of Royal Mail and the Post Office. I am clear that when it comes to undertaking a sale of shares in Royal Mail, the Government must have the flexibility to negotiate the right deal at the right time.
	I know that hon. Members have been anxious to hear more about the next steps in our plans for Royal Mail, so with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, and in the interests of transparency, I would like to set out briefly the next two crucial steps that need to be taken to secure the future of Royal Mail. As my noble Friend Baroness Wilcox said on Third Reading in the other place, the Government intend to take on Royal Mail’s historical pension deficit with effect from March 2012 as part of the preparations for the sale of the company. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate what a relief it will be to the 435,000 members of the Royal Mail pension plan to know that their accrued pension rights will be protected sooner rather than later.
	The key concern of people up and down the country is that the universal service must be protected. To do that, Royal Mail needs to be on a sustainable commercial footing. The company currently has about £1.7 billion of debt facilities with the Government. We need to restructure the company’s balance sheet in due course, and in order to put Royal Mail on that sustainable commercial footing, we will need to reduce significantly that level of debt. Of course, we will need approval from the European Commission to provide this financial support, and we have already begun informal discussions with the Commission. The Government will submit a formal stated notification in the next few days, and I hope that the process will be completed by March 2012.
	We will discuss amendments to part 3 of the Bill, which deal with the new regulatory regime, later on, but of course implementing that regime will be another
	crucial step towards to securing the future of the universal service. I would like to assure hon. Members that the work to establish this is already under way. In particular, Ofcom, the new regulator, will launch a consultation in the autumn with a view to establishing the new regulatory framework in the spring of 2012. I hope that that update is helpful.
	I begin my main remarks on this group of amendments by commending Opposition Members on pushing us on whether, given our commitment to transparent government, more could and should be done to offer more information to Parliament. Amendment 1 is a direct response to that. Clause 2 already commits the Government to report to Parliament when a decision to dispose of shares has been made. Amendment 1 adds three new requirements for that report: first, that it must include the objective for the sale; secondly, that it must include details of the expected commercial relationship between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd following the disposal of shares; and thirdly, that where the proposed disposal would result in shares being placed into the employee share scheme for the first time, the report must include details of that scheme. As I previously said to the Public Bill Committee, I will ensure that shares are placed in the employee share scheme from the time of the very first sale of shares in Royal Mail.
	The second of the new requirements—to provide information on the expected commercial relationship between Post Office Ltd and Royal Mail after the sale of shares—will work together with amendment 9 to address a key concern that I know is held by many in the House. After much debate in the House and elsewhere, I can still see no reason why the strong commercial relationship between Post Office Ltd and Royal Mail should weaken after the two companies have been separated. More importantly, the senior management at Royal Mail has been clear that this relationship will continue. That is why the chairman of Royal Mail, Donald Brydon, felt able to say to the Bill Committee that prior to a sale of shares in Royal Mail, the two companies would put in place a new contract for the longest time legally permissible. I have gone on the record—and I am happy to do so again today—as saying that the Government, as sole shareholder, will ensure that the two companies fulfil this commitment.
	The negotiation of that contract is, rightly, a commercial matter for the two companies, and not for the Government or this legislation. However, Lords amendment 1 will ensure that, prior to a sale of shares in Royal Mail, Parliament has a snapshot of the expected commercial relationship following the sale, and Lords amendment 9 would make it clear that the annual report on the post office network must include information every year on the postal services provided as part of that relationship. Lords amendment 10 is a technical amendment to clarify the enforcement powers that apply to the annual report on the post office network.
	There can be no doubt that the future of this iconic British institution is of enormous interest to Members of this House and in the other place. I believe that a mutual Post Office is a radical and exciting proposal, and one that is supported by all parties. However, I acknowledge that our position—that mutualisation must be a bottom-up process that engages sub-postmasters, customers and management—means that we cannot be as explicit now about what that mutual will look like.
	Co-operatives UK has now published its report on the options for a mutual, and that report will form the basis for the Government’s full public consultation in due course. Until the conclusion of that process, the Government remain open to all views. We will not dictate the form that mutualisation will take.
	To give both Houses more oversight of what an eventual Post Office mutual might look like, we have tabled Lords amendments 2 to 8, which would introduce the affirmative procedure to the powers to mutualise Post Office Ltd. Furthermore, those amendments would ensure that the report on mutualisation provided for under clause 5 must be laid prior to the vote, so that hon. Members have full and detailed information on the mutualisation plans before they debate and vote on them. Let me be clear, however, that the plans, as I have said before, will be developed from the bottom up and in full consultation with all of the Post Office’s major stakeholders.
	The last amendment in this group—Lords amendment 11 —addresses an issue that I know is close to the hearts of many hon. Members. When my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary opened the debate on the Bill on Second Reading, he talked of this country being a pioneer of postal services in the 19th century. It is that proud and rich postal history that Lords amendment 11 seeks to protect, by requiring Royal Mail to report annually on its activities in relation to the British postal museum and archive. Having visited the British postal museum and archive, I can say that it provides a wonderful and fascinating record of our postal heritage, and is absolutely deserving of the protection that Lords amendment 11 seeks to provide. I would be quite keen to share with the House the benefit of my visit and some of the lessons that I learnt—for example, that the first post boxes were green, before moving to chocolate brown and then ending up one of the shades of red that we see across our country—but I am sure that you would bring me to order if I did, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	In conclusion, the amendments in this group respond to a number of concerns raised in both this House and the other place. They seek to offer more information on the implications of the sale of shares, more parliamentary control over Post Office mutualisation and greater transparency of Royal Mail’s heritage activities. I believe that the objectives that they seek to achieve are truly cross-party objectives, so I would urge the House to agree to them.

Nia Griffith: It is indeed our intention to be a constructive Opposition and to welcome amendments that improve the Bill. However, even though we welcome some of the amendments this afternoon—particularly where they reflect to some degree the position that we have taken on aspects of the Bill—we remain totally opposed to the main purpose of the Bill, which is to sell off the Royal Mail 100% to private enterprise. That is completely different from our proposal, which was to keep the Royal Mail in majority public ownership. Selling off the Royal Mail into 100% private ownership means that only through the regulatory regime will the Government and the taxpayers of this country have any influence on the service provided.

Nia Griffith: I shall take your advice on the matter, Madam Deputy Speaker; I believe that the hon. Lady should stick to the amendments on the Order Paper.
	This first group of amendments concerns the sell-off of the Royal Mail and the splitting up of the Royal Mail Group into a privately owned postal service and a publicly owned network of post office counters. It is against that background that we should consider Lords amendment 1, which requires that when the Secretary of State lays before Parliament a report on the disposal of a Royal Mail company, it should include
	“information about the expected commercial relationship…between the Royal Mail company in question and any Post Office company”.
	We genuinely welcome the inclusion of such information in the report, but no one should be under any illusion that this in any way constitutes an inter-business agreement between the Royal Mail and the post office network. Hooper recommended in his report that there should be a long-term agreement between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd, and the National Federation of SubPostmasters has asked for an IBA of a minimum of 10 years. We have repeatedly called on the Government, at all stages of the Bill, to include an inter-business agreement in the legislation, and have tabled amendments to that effect.
	One third of Post Office Ltd’s revenue comes from the Royal Mail. Without that revenue, Post Office Ltd would be unable to keep many post offices open. With the greatest of respect to Moya Greene, the current chief executive officer of the Royal Mail, who has talked about a privatised Royal Mail continuing to use the post office network, it is no good simply having fine words. Those fine words need to be translated into a proper bankable contract—a proper agreement. Other countries manage to put agreements into their legislation, but the real difficulty in this case is an intense obstinacy on the part of the Government, who have set themselves against enshrining any protection for the post office network in legislation.
	A profit-hungry privatised Royal Mail will be looking to cut costs and maximise profits. That could result in the Royal Mail drawing up an agreement for part or even all of its services with providers other than the post office network, such as a supermarket chain or a high street store. A privatised Royal Mail may well wish to continue to have some sort of agreement with Post Office Ltd, but that agreement could be for a much reduced service from that which the Post Office currently provides. It could involve just a small proportion of the current network of Post Office branches. That could give rise to the surreal spectacle of some post offices being places where people could hand over their parcels or register their letters, with other post offices not offering postal services. It sounds a bit like a children’s riddle—“When is a post office not a post office?”—but it would be no joking matter for our post office network or for the public, who want easy access to postal services, if such services were available at only some of the current post office branches.
	Any decision by a privatised Royal Mail to reduce the number of branches that it uses would have a catastrophic effect on the income of the post office network, and
	threaten the viability and very existence of any branches that the Royal Mail chose not to use. It is therefore regrettable that the Government have refused to include a clause in the Bill requiring an inter-business agreement and that Lords amendment 1, which requires a report on such an agreement, is the nearest that they are prepared to get. The amendment does, nevertheless, mean that the report that the Secretary of State lays before Parliament must include some mention of the expected commercial relationship between the Royal Mail company and any Post office company, and for that reason we welcome it.
	Let me turn to the part of Lords amendment 1 that deals with shares. We accept the principle of employee shares, and appreciate the benefits that such schemes can bring, but in this instance employees will need to know a lot more about exactly how any scheme would work. We have pressed for greater detail about the scheme, so we welcome the proposal in the amendment that a report be laid before Parliament setting out the detail of a proposed employee share scheme before the disposal of the Royal Mail takes place. In Committee, we pointed out that the Bill as it stands requires employee shares to be offered only when the last Crown share in the Royal Mail has been sold. We argued the case for a trigger that kicks in when the first shares are sold. The Minister for postal services has suggested that, despite the wording of the Bill, the Government would, in fact, make available some employee shares when the first disposal is made. I very much welcome his confirmation of that point today, so that employees will not have to wait until the last Crown share is sold before being able to apply for any employee shares.
	There remain, however, a number of unanswered questions, on which I hope the Minister can give us some guidance today. Would shares be held on an equal basis, with equal voting rights for each shareholder and an equal distribution of dividends, or would some shareholders be more equal than others? In Committee, we made the case for more than 10% of the shares to be in the employee share scheme; we have suggested up to 20%. That case is backed by specialist bodies that gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee, including the Employee Ownership Association and ifs ProShare. Is there any chance that the Government might consider that?
	We would also like greater certainty about the eligibility criteria. Who would be entitled to shares or share options, and what would that mean in practice? Would employees be able to act to influence the strategic direction of the company to some extent, albeit from a minority position? In particular, what is to prevent shares from going to employees one day and being sold within a year or two? We all know of previous examples of where that has happened, with shares being rapidly sold on to big institutions. What mechanisms are the Government considering to prevent that from happening? We hope to hear from the Minister the extent of the detail that the Government intend to report and how much time they will provide for Parliament to consider the report.
	We welcome Lords amendments 2 to 8, which give Parliament increased control over the mutualisation of a Post Office company. The effect of amendments 2 to 4 would be to subject the disposal of the Crown’s interest in a Post Office company to a relevant mutual to the
	affirmative resolution procedure. That would require the Secretary of State to lay a draft order before Parliament and for it to be approved by both Houses before it could be made. Lords Amendments 5 to 8 require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament before an order directing the issue or transfer of shares or share rights in a Post Office company to a relevant mutual is made. That is an improvement on the original requirement, which was to lay a report after any direction for the disposal of the Crown’s interest in a Post Office company to a relevant mutual had been made.
	These amendments strengthen the opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise any proposals for the mutualisation of the Post Office. This is important because considerable challenges must be faced before any such mutualisation can take place. We welcome the work on mutualisation detailed in the recently produced report by Co-operatives UK, which includes information on various mutual options, and on the ownership and governance of a potential mutual, but we recognise that the real challenge is to make the post office network viable. For all the Government’s fine rhetoric, we are concerned about their failure to guarantee business for the post office network. For mutualisation to be a success, we need to see a serious, viable business plan for our post office network. We are fully aware of the Government’s plans to spend money on the network, but their accompanying document “Securing the post office network in the digital age” does not address the issue of how to generate new streams of business for the network.
	Post office income can be divided into three main categories—Royal Mail business, Government business and other commercial business—and the Government have failed to provide guarantees of business in any of them. I have just explained how the lack of an inter-business agreement between a privatised Royal Mail and the post office network could result in the loss of all or a substantial part of Royal Mail business from the post office. As for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ claim to be making the Post Office a front office for Government business, that message does not seem to be getting across to other Government Departments.
	For example, we have just seen the Department for Work and Pensions award the contract for benefit cheques, the so-called green giros, to a rival organisation. Apart from a couple of pilot projects, there has been little progress on the proposals for more Government business made in a letter from the National Federation of SubPostmasters to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions dated 23 September last year. At the moment, the post bank promised in the Liberal Democrat manifesto and mentioned in the coalition agreement looks like just another broken promise and missed opportunity, especially after Labour had laid the foundations for it before we left government. Nor is there any sign of any other substantial new commercial business for the post office network.
	This complete failure to introduce new streams of business calls into question the wisdom of the way in which the £1.34 billion of taxpayers’ money allocated to the Post Office is being used, with the subsidy for running the Post Office and the provision of a few new counters seemingly accounting for the lion’s share of the funds. This also raises the question of what will happen when the subsidy runs out in 2015. The Government
	have stated that they wish to reduce their subsidy, but if there are no new streams of Government business to make the network more viable, the post office network will be in serious trouble. However, the fact that Lords amendments 2 to 8 improve the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny means that we will support them.
	We welcome Lords amendments 9 and 10, which clarify that in the Post Office company’s annual report to the Secretary of State on the post office network, details of postal services provided under arrangements between a Post Office company and a universal service provider must be included. We welcome any amendments that improve clarity and increase the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny.
	Lords amendment 11 would require Royal Mail to report annually to the Secretary of State on its activities in relation to the British Postal Museum collection and the Royal Mail archive. The proposal would also require the Secretary of State to lay the report before Parliament. In Committee, we sought amendments to ensure that the work of the British Postal Museum and Archive—the BPMA—would continue following the passage of the Bill, and that the heritage cared for by the curators of the museum would be protected. That protection needs to be strengthened, because the Bill moves us away from a situation in which one Government-owned company, Royal Mail, is clearly responsible for supporting and safeguarding our postal heritage, to one in which there will be at least two companies with different ownership models. There will also be the potential for a privatised Royal Mail company to be taken over, perhaps by foreign postal administrations or other companies with no interest in supporting Britain’s postal heritage.
	I do not feel that the Lords amendment is as strong as the one that we originally proposed. Nevertheless, anything that we can do to protect our heritage is to be welcomed. The BPMA is the leading resource for British postal heritage. It cares for visual, physical and written records dating back more than 400 years, including stamps, poster design, photography, staff records and vehicles. The BPMA is the custodian of two internationally significant collections—the Royal Mail archive and the collection of the former national postal museum. Together, the museum and archive collections form a unique record of a national institution, and offer a fascinating perspective on the history of British society, design and industry. We want the strongest possible protection for the British Postal Museum collection and the Royal Mail archive, and although we were looking for stronger protection, we are of course pleased to lend our support to that amendment.

Jack Dromey: It is important that, when we come to the House, we should reflect the feelings of our constituents. I should therefore like to tell two stories. First, just before Christmas, I visited the local postal sorting office at Sutton New road. I spoke to each of the excellent men and women there. They told me how they had worked there for 10, 15 or 20 years. Some had worked there for 25 years. They work in all weathers to provide an outstanding service to the people of north Birmingham. They felt bitter about what they regard as a betrayal of their loyal service to the country.
	Secondly, I want to tell a story not so much about a local post office as about a local entrepreneur who wants to reopen a post office. We have in Perry Common a community well served by the Witton Lodge community association. That community has backed an individual who now runs the local grocery shop—it used to be a sub-post office—and he wants to reopen that post office. Through me, he has approached both the Post Office and the Government for support, only to have it declined. If I may, I will return to that matter at the conclusion of my remarks.
	The Lords amendments focus on local post offices, among other things, and the evidence is clear that they are finding it increasingly hard to survive. By some estimates, only 4,000 of the UK’s 11,905 post offices are economically viable. Despite assurances from the Government that there will be no further programme of post office closures, the evidence shows that branches are closing every day of the week. More than 150 offices are closed on a long-term “temporary” basis and there
	is no guarantee that these will re-open; many are likely to stay closed indefinitely. As Consumer Focus stated in a press release,
	“we have continued to see a dwindling in the overall number of branches.”
	Nationwide, 900 post offices are up for sale. That is why the Post Office cannot afford to lose any more revenue. The post office network is already loss making and depends on an annual Government subsidy to remain afloat. In 2009-10, the Post Office made an operating loss of £80 million before Government subsidy and its financial position continues to weaken. Its target this year, excluding subsidy, is for a £120 million loss.
	The Government have pushed through this unwelcome Bill, allowing the privatisation of Royal Mail with scant regard for the consequences for the post office network or the universal service of a six-day delivery at a uniform, affordable price across the whole of the UK. As the Labour Front-Bench team has made absolutely clear, we continue to oppose the wholesale privatisation of the Royal Mail. We called on the Government for a guarantee of an inter-business agreement between the Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd. The Government have refused to listen to that, including in these amendments, so they are abrogating their responsibilities to the post office network.
	I have to say that Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs are quick to use the Post Office in their localities for their own political ends, but not as quick to stand up in this place for their local post offices at their time of need. I also have to say that the Government’s approach calls into question the logic of allocating £1.3 billion of taxpayers’ money for subsidy and refurbishment of post offices when the Government are not prepared to put a clause in the Bill to guarantee the future of Royal Mail business to the Post Office.
	The Minister referred to history, and this remarkable institution of the Post Office certainly has a remarkable history. We have seen over the last 50 to 100 years how it has developed ground-breaking initiatives that make no profit but serve the community—ranging from free delivery of articles for the blind to answering letters written to Santa free of charge.
	Returning to the issue of the Post Office—

Jack Dromey: I was just about to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker, but like the Minister, I embarked on some historical anecdotes, as the Post Office is very proud of its history.
	There is a simple inescapable reality, which is that the Post Office is dependent on the Royal Mail’s business. A third of its revenue—£334 million—and a third of sub-postmasters’ pay—£240 million—is generated by selling Royal Mail products and services. The Bill does not safeguard on a continuing basis the inter-business agreement. The Government will not undertake to extend the current five-year guarantee to 10 years. Key stakeholders recognise the importance of making a longer commitment
	on the IBA. Let me cite what Consumer Focus said in its evidence to the other place:
	“There are few safeguards to keep that contract for the long term. It’s entirely conceivable—though it seems an odd thing to suggest—but several years down the line you could have a post office network where you cannot undertake mail transactions. It would be for Royal Mail to determine which operator—whether it was Post Office Ltd or Tesco or whomever—to offer mail services and there would be no requirement for stamps or parcels.”
	It continued:
	“You could see a scenario where Royal Mail looked to cherry pick so Tesco, say, could meet its requirements in urban areas and the Post Office would pick up the slack in rural areas where there isn’t anybody else. And that has very serious implications in terms of the viability and integrity of the network because urban areas typically make money.”
	Consumer Focus went on to argue that the number of post offices could fall by 37% as a consequence of these measures—from the current level of 11,900 to the minimum number consistent with the Government’s access criteria of 7,500. In Birmingham alone, seven post offices face closure.
	The National Federation of SubPostmasters has added its call to the need for action. It also argues for a minimum 10-year IBA. Let me quote what it says:
	“The NFSP believes that in order to avoid further post office closures, existing levels of Royal Mail work at post offices must be maintained with a minimum 10 year IBA between the two companies following separation.”
	The Government’s stance is clear, albeit sad. They have rejected a number of opportunities to make the commitments that have been called for.

Jack Dromey: To develop our post office network, it is necessary to be imaginative and creative. Sadly, we are moving in the opposite direction.
	The Government’s stance could not be clearer. They have rejected a number of opportunities to make the commitment firm in this important legislation. They have declined to accept a statutory commitment, as exists in countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, to a figure of 11,500. They have rejected the embedding into the Bill of the access criteria on how near people’s local post office will be. Post offices locally cannot live on warm words alone; good intentions and high hopes mean naught if we cannot have guarantees for the future.

Michael Weir: I have expressed opposition to post office closures for 10 years in the House, and my view is unchanged. My colleagues and I do not think that the Post Office should be privatised, but the Bill is going through. I would laugh if it were not so sad to hear Labour Members slagging off the Government, given the number of post offices that their party closed, but I had better confine my remarks to the amendments so that you do not call me to order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Although I welcome Lords amendment 1 to an extent because it would improve the report, it does not provide a guarantee of business. That remains a difficulty: there is considerable uncertainty in local post offices about future business, and I fear that many more will close if it is not dealt with. Many are closing now, not just because of the Post Office side of the business but because of the general state of the economy. At the risk of opening up another front of argument between the two sides, I will cite Ferryden in my constituency. During the closure programme it was agreed that Ferryden’s post office was needed, but the post office was in the local shop, which recently closed. The reason was not to do with the post
	office itself—and I appreciate that it is not within the Government’s immediate control—but the fact that the small shop, the last in the village, was considered to be no longer economic. When the shop went, the post office went as well.
	The same difficulty exists in rural areas throughout the country. With respect to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), post offices will not take up the slack in rural areas, because they are closing there as well. It is a simple case of economics. It is unlikely that the Ferryden post office will go to another business, because it does not exist. The chances are that it will end up as an outreach programme and a restricted service to the village. The important thing is to try to keep some postal villages in that village. I should have preferred an inter-business agreement that provided certainty about the future level of business. I appreciate the difficulties, but the continued uncertainty does not help.
	My main point about the Lords amendment relates to new section (3A)(b), which concerns the proposed share scheme. I wanted to raise the issue at an earlier stage, but unfortunately we ran out of time. The amendment states that when shares are sold for the first time, details of the employee share scheme will be given. However, we do not know what the structure of the scheme will be. Clause 3(2) states that when the Crown no longer owns any part of Royal Mail, the share held by or on behalf of the employee share scheme must be at least 10%. I know that the Minister said that on the first sale of shares the share scheme details would be given, but the 10% is vitally important, because the Bill otherwise allows the sale of 90% of the company to one another entity, such as another postal operator. Leaving aside the argument put by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) on behalf of the Opposition about whether 10% is an appropriate figure, the choice of this level does present a potential difficulty, depending on how the shareholding is held. In Committee, the Minister was pressed on whether the shareholding would be held in a trust for the benefit of the employees—the so-called John Lewis model—or whether it would be given in individual shares to the workers. We did not receive an answer to that question.

Fiona O'Donnell: Has the hon. Gentleman’s party had any discussions with the Government about the future of the Royal Mail in an independent Scotland?

Michael Weir: The hon. Lady has taken her chances by asking that question, but it goes beyond the scope of the amendments before us. The Post Office is very important to rural areas of Scotland, and I will merely note that the Scottish Government have done much more than the UK Government to help rural post offices in the future—such as through the diversification and rates rebate schemes. That illustrates what we would do in an independent Scotland.
	To return to the point I was making before being led down this interesting side road, the lack of detail about the structure presents a dilemma because, depending on what method is chosen, there could be unintended consequences in the future. If the John Lewis method is pursued, there may well be no problem, in that it will be a trust holding and will, in all likelihood, be held at or above the 10% level. However, if the shares are distributed
	to individual employees, we could have a very different scenario. Experience of previous privatisations suggests that a number of employees would immediately sell their shareholdings, and others would be likely to sell at some future date, either when they retire or, perhaps, by their executors on death. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that; they would be their shares so they can dispose of them as they see fit. Such actions could, however, have a serious consequence for the continuation of a workers’ shareholding within the company, because of the operation of our current company law, and especially as Ministers have made it absolutely clear that they would be relaxed about Royal Mail being bought by either one of the major foreign postal operators or private equity companies up to the remaining 90% figure.
	I remind the House that in cases where private equity companies have bought listed companies, they have on occasion de-listed the company and operated it as a private company. I particularly draw Members’ attention to the terms of section 429 of the Companies Act 1985, which gives provision in respect of implementation of the EU directive on takeover bids. One of the purposes of the directive was to deal with the problems of, and for, residual minority shareholders following a successful takeover bid, processes known as “squeeze out” and “sell out”. The provisions in question provide that following a takeover offer:
	“If the offeror has, by virtue of acceptances of the offer, acquired or unconditionally contracted to acquire—
	(a) not less than nine-tenths in value of the shares to which the offer relates, and
	(b) in a case where the shares to which the offer relates are voting shares, not less than nine-tenths of the voting rights carried by those shares,
	he may give notice to the holder of any shares to which the offer relates which the offeror has not acquired or unconditionally contracted to acquire that he desires to acquire those shares.”
	In effect, therefore, anyone who acquires 90% of the shareholding in a company can force the sale of the shares of the remaining small shareholders and become sole owner of the company. If the Government were to sell 90% of Royal Mail to, say, Deutsche Post, there could clearly be a potential difficulty in regard to the workers’ shareholding in the future if that is held individually by Post Office workers. If at any time the individual shares held by the work force were to fall below 10%, there is the potential for the owner of the remaining 90% to force a sale and therefore wipe out the shareholdings of the workers.
	I am sure the Minister will, in his usual inimitable manner, tell me that I am constructing a theoretical problem that would not occur in the real world, but I wanted to propose an amendment on this point because of a real case of this kind involving constituents of mine. My constituents, who are pensioners, were shareholders in Dana Petroleum, and had been for a large number of years. The company was not paying dividends, but the shareholding did increase in value and my constituents regarded it as a nest egg for the future. Unfortunately, Dana Petroleum was subject to a hostile takeover by the Korean National Oil Corporation, which I believe is state-owned—I believe it is part of a sovereign wealth fund. That company purchased the majority of shares, although my constituents did not wish to accept its offer. The new owners decided to
	de-list the company, with the effect that my constituents were forced to sell their shareholdings, in their case causing a capital gains tax liability.
	Unless the Government give us details of the form the shareholding will take, there is a genuine danger that we could face that situation within Royal Mail in the future. If the Minister will stand up and say, “It will be the John Lewis model; it will be a share trust of at least 10% of the shares for all the employees in the company”, I do not think there will be a problem. Alternatively, however, we might go down the same road as with previous utility sales, where individual shares were given to the workers and that shareholding within the companies has been reduced over the years. It is interesting to note that many of the former utilities are now offering special deals to get small shareholders to sell out their remaining shares because they do not want the small shareholders. Although this idea of worker participation is a good one, I would rather the company was not privatised. If that does happen, however, the bigger the workers’ shareholding within it, the better, and the shareholders would, it is to be hoped, have real rights.
	As there is a lack of detail on this point, there is a danger that we will end up with nothing for the workers and the company wholly in the hands of one, possibly foreign, postal service or private equity company. The recent experience of private equity companies buying out limited companies is not a good one; we need only look at the current problems with Southern Cross to see that. I ask the Minister to reflect on this issue, and give us an assurance on it, or at least more information as to how the shareholding is to be held.

Jim Shannon: I am aware that you have asked us to focus on the amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I intend to do just that. I want to focus my comments on Lords amendment 9 to clause 11, referring in particular to the universal service provider. While some level of provision is given, I am not entirely convinced that we will have a better service. That is my opinion, and it is informed by the views of the people I represent, because they are telling me the same thing. It is being said not only by Post Office personnel, and among them it is stated by both those who own post offices—postmistresses and postmasters—and the Postman Pats of this world who do the hard graft out on the streets. Some Members have spoken about the business plan that post offices need in order to make them sustainable. Can the Minister convince me and other Members—and, through the Hansard report of the debate, convince my constituents—that the service will continue to deliver in the large rural community I represent that stretches from Portaferry to Ballynahinch?
	For many of my constituents, post offices are a crucial part of their community. They are the front office of government. I am unconvinced that the revenues of sub-post offices will not decline, and that could lead to some of them closing. We need the Minister to respond to that point.
	Some Members have spoken about the continuity of contracts beyond five years, and that is essential. The postmistresses and postmasters of the rural post offices in the areas I represent have told me that they are under
	absolutely no illusion about how things will progress, and I say on behalf of them that we need to ensure that they have such continuity.
	Under the new law, the universal service for six days a week with one price sending post anywhere could be downgraded in just four years, and it is feared that the everyday post office user will experience price hikes and have to pay for the privatisation. The unions have pointed out the possible consequences of privatisation in respect of postal services, and I look forward to hearing the Minister comment on that point. This has already happened in the Netherlands and Germany, where the rural service has been reduced to three days a week, and the costs have risen.
	We might find examples where what is being proposed here has not worked out elsewhere, so what lessons have the Government taken to ensure that the same does not happen in this process?
	I am keen and anxious to discover whether the Government have taken full account of the views of sub-postmasters. I understand that some 92% of them have said that they feel that the Post Office is “very unlikely” or “unlikely” to survive without the mail business provided by Royal Mail. As so many people are saying that, it would be unwise of the Government to ignore it.
	As we all know the statistics on this, I do not intend to go into them. What consideration have the Government given to the crucial role of post offices in the community? I believe that we all agree that our post offices are more than just post offices; they are a social meeting point for a great many people. I know that that does not come into the economics of a post office, but it must be part of the process in deciding which post offices can remain open. Finance will be the driver in that, but post offices provide an opportunity for people to mix and mingle and the staff have clear contacts with the people in the community. Most of the hon. Members who are going to speak today will probably speak from a rural community background. The National Consumer Council has shown that the Post Office was thought to be more accessible than banks, and we cannot ignore that. When we decide what is going to happen with the Post Office today and what could happen in five or 10 years’ time, we have to ensure that we will get things right. Only 4% of villages have a bank, whereas 60% of them have a post office, so we should ask communities such as mine about this. It would be remiss of me not to make that point in the House today and not to ask the Government to tell us exactly what assurances we will be given. It is the essentials provided on a week-to-week basis that the banks do not do, because they are not in these places but the post offices are.
	What consideration has been given to the view of businesses in rural communities that are near to the post offices? They say that some 15% of their revenue is created in the post offices, so has full consideration been given to that? What assurance do we have that that will continue to happen in the post offices? The fact that the service provision is universal is a crucial factor in what happens and what we take forward.
	I raise the following point because I was asked it by the Royal National Institute of Blind People and other hon. Members have alluded to it. If closures go ahead,
	they will hit the blind and partially sighted particularly hard, leaving them even more socially and financially excluded than they have ever been before. They will no longer be able to use their local post office to help with the mountain of forms pushed on them by civil servants.
	So the role of the post offices in rural communities and in urban centres is a crucial factor in terms of how people can respond to any changes that will take place. Worryingly, as I said in my introduction—I will say it again and I look forward to hearing the response—I do not believe that the Government have convinced the general public that the changes that are coming are changes for the better. I am not convinced of that, neither are the people who speak to me, the postmasters and postmistresses, or the Royal Mail staff. Most importantly, the general public, who we have a duty and responsibility to look after, are not convinced of it either.

Michael Connarty: Despite all these amendments, which have been won by clear arguments put by Labour Members in the House of Lords and the Cross Benchers who supported them, I am still concerned about having a Bill that is fit for purpose.
	Lords amendment 1 provides a new requirement that the report made by the Secretary of State will make clear the
	“objective intended to be achieved”
	by the disposal of shares in Royal Mail. I have followed this issue very closely so I know that everything else falls on that. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am the secretary of the Communication Workers Union liaison group of MPs in this House and have been so for more than a decade. Despite all the Minister’s warm words, it is not clear what this is meant to achieve that can be achievable under this privatisation model as structured.
	Does the “objective intended” include maintaining Royal Mail as an organisation able to deliver to all parts of the UK for a single charge or two varying charges? The Bill and the amendments provide no guarantees that that is the case. Will that be covered in the report given each year by the Secretary of State to the House in order to show just how far the failure has been progressed, and how far my concerns and those of other Opposition Members have been realised? If we were to fragment the Royal Mail—it is entirely possible that that will happen as there is nothing to prevent it under the Government’s privatisation model—a Scottish regional mail delivery service could be given responsibility for meeting that objective under this model. That provider might then find that that particular part of the United Kingdom—the same could happen in places such as Cornwall and elsewhere in the south-west—the sparsity of the population and the diversity of the communities mean that it is not possible to make a profit. This process is about a privatisation and about giving organisations the right to run Royal Mail as an organisation that must make a profit. The Bill would allow them to come back to ask the Secretary of State to allow them to get rid of that universal service obligation.

Edward Davey: I am looking forward to doing that, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Llanelli welcomed Lords amendment 1 but felt that it did not go far enough. Despite all the arguments we have had in this place, she still believes that an inter-business agreement should be in the Bill, as do a number of her party’s members.
	I do not wish to rehearse the long speeches that were made on Report, when our debate on this particular point lasted for about three hours, but let me repeat that putting provisions in the Bill in the way in which the hon. Lady suggests would create a significant risk of legal challenge owing to incompatibility with competition law. In addition, such an approach would almost certainly face a state aid challenge. I would have thought that she would have realised that, because it has been accepted by many who have examined the situation in detail.
	The hon. Lady says that the absence of such provisions means that there is no protection for post offices, but the whole point is that the detail set out in our policy statement will enable them to be more profitable. It is real business that will save the post office network, not legal provisions in the Bill, so I disagree with her point.
	The hon. Lady spent some time talking about employee shares. The Lords amendments will require the Secretary of State’s report to Parliament at the time of first sale of
	shares to include details about the employee share scheme. I would have thought that she would have supported that welcome development.
	We would certainly want to report on such things as the terms by which shares would transfer to the employee share scheme and the design of the scheme. Such detail might include questions of whether there would be a trust model or individual shares, or a mixture of the two. There would also be consideration of the percentages to be transferred and the governance arrangements.
	The hon. Lady asked how the shares will be allocated, but clearly that is a point for later discussion. Such a point might be addressed in the report. We can imagine allocating shares to employees on many bases, such as length of service, grade and salary. The Government would certainly not object to a proposal that shares and their benefits should be allocated evenly across employees to ensure that there is equal entitlement regardless of grade, salary or length of service. We have been clear that the scheme is for all employees of Royal Mail, not just the management, so I hope that people will not run away with the wrong idea.
	Several Opposition Members asked what would stop employees from selling shares immediately. Again, we are not making premature decisions about the scheme’s design, but we have always said, as I have repeated several times, that we are designing the scheme with longevity in mind—there are many attractions to a trust model for that very reason. However, it is not true that individual employees’ shares are always sold off by those employees. People arguing that point try to pray in aid the BT example, but the Public Bill Committee heard evidence that 66% of BT employees held on to their shares after the share plan had matured, so there is longevity in share ownership, even with the individual model. A lot of myths are cited by those who oppose employee share ownership, which was no doubt why the Labour party did not include employee shares in its 2009 Bill.

Edward Davey: I listened carefully to that interesting point in the hon. Gentleman’s speech, and the way in which he eloquently described the situation and referred to the Companies Act 2006 showed that we need to ensure that we design the scheme carefully. We will do so, because we want to deliver on employee share ownership, which is an objective of the Liberal Democrats, the coalition Government and the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Llanelli was generally supportive of the proposals on mutualisation, but she spent a lot of time—do tell me if I stray out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker?—saying that Government front-office services had not been delivered. We are turning around the decline under which the previous Administration took away more than £300 million of Government services from post offices. Our policy statement and the things that we are delivering show that there is a real future for the front office of government.

Jack Dromey: The Minister speaks of hope, and the same word was used when the Bill was launched. Seven post offices in Birmingham now face closure, one of which is in the Yardley constituency of a Liberal Democrat Member. Will the Minister agree to meet the community of Perry Common, which has signed a 1,000-strong petition asking for the reopening of a flexible post office in their locality? Earlier this week another Minister went to Perry Common and held it out as an excellent example of a community that has rebuilt its environment. It now wants to rebuild its high street, and it wants a sub-post office on it. Will the Minister meet the community and Mr Tarnjhit Dhesi, who is driving that proposal?

Michael Weir: With respect to the Minister, this is not about setting things in aspic. The problem is that there is a great deal of uncertainty, because the Royal Mail is up for privatisation, the link between the Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd now relies on the good will of whoever runs Royal Mail, and with no guarantee of business it is difficult for those trying to sell post offices to find people to take them on, as they are uncertain of what business there will be in one or two years’ time.

Edward Davey: As has been made clear at every possible opportunity, the Government are absolutely committed to the long-term security of the universal postal service. As the Royal Mail is the provider of that universal service, and the only possible provider of it for the foreseeable future, its viability is clearly of huge importance to achieving that goal. The Lords amendments to the regulatory provisions of the Bill respond to points raised in both Houses and by Members of all parties, and will help to ensure that the Bill meets our primary objective of securing the universal service.
	Lords amendment 17, on Ofcom’s duties, will ensure that Royal Mail has the opportunity to earn a reasonable commercial rate of return on all expenditure incurred in providing the universal postal service, and on any regulated access services in so far as they make use of the universal postal service network. Although it is obviously not within the gift of the regulator to determine precisely what returns Royal Mail can make—that should depend on the market and the company’s performance—it is essential that the regulatory framework should provide incentives for Royal Mail to be successful and make the necessary efficiency improvements, and allow for good performance to be rewarded without regulation eroding the effect of increased efficiency. The amendment will ensure just that.
	Lords amendments 16 and 18 further amend Ofcom’s duties, to specify that the requirement for efficiency should apply
	“before the end of a reasonable period”,
	to give Royal Mail time to continue its vital modernisation. That is an important change. Clearly, the delivery of the universal postal service needs to become more efficient, and neither those amendments nor the ones to which I have already spoken will undermine that. However, we do think that it is important to give Royal Mail a reasonable period of time in which to modernise and achieve efficiency.
	As part of that ongoing modernisation, Royal Mail will need to invest in new machinery and technology. Before making long-term investments, boards and shareholders look for certainty. Lords amendment 22 will give Royal Mail certainty that for a significant length of time—10 years—it will be able to remain the universal service provider throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. As previously drafted, the Bill could have given rise to doubts about the certainty of Royal Mail’s designation as the universal service provider in the short to medium term, as it effectively provided for a three-year moratorium period before there could be a procurement determination. Although it was not the
	Government’s intention, the risk of Royal Mail losing part or all of its designation after three years via a procurement determination could clearly have discouraged the company from making otherwise rational and important long-term investments in its infrastructure. That is why Lords amendment 22 gives Royal Mail a 10-year period of certainty.
	However, although we need Royal Mail to have that certainty, we also need to keep up the pressure on it to press ahead with modernisation. We must recognise that the threat of a compensation fund means increased uncertainty for its competitors. It is therefore not unreasonable to seek to delay the possible introduction of a compensation fund until necessary modernisation has taken place.
	We have looked again at the moratorium period before Ofcom can initiate an unfair burden review and concluded that a period of five years is appropriate. Lords amendment 21 gives effect to that.
	During the passage of the Bill, many hon. Members have raised concerns about the prospect of other operators cherry-picking profitable elements of Royal Mail’s delivery business and, as a result, putting the security of the universal service at risk. The Government have reflected on those concerns, and during the Bill’s passage through the other place engaged in constructive discussion with Opposition Front Benchers there, as well as with Royal Mail and the Communication Workers Union.
	Although we are confident that Ofcom has the necessary tools to ensure fair and effective competition in the market, it is our belief that on occasion it will need to build in greater time to inform its use of those tools. Lords amendments 15, 20 and 25 address that by giving Ofcom the power to require operators to pre-notify them of the planned commencement or expansion of a letters business on a specified scale. We have left the precise scale for later definition—it will depend on the market at the time—but our clear intention is that that should apply only to a significant letter delivery operation that could have a damaging impact on the provision of the universal service. That notification mechanism will ensure that Ofcom has the necessary time to evaluate the potential impact on the universal service of such an operation before the operation has commenced and, critically, before any potential damage has been done to the security of the universal service.
	I stress that the notification condition is aimed at avoiding damaging cherry-picking that would put in jeopardy the long-term security of the universal service. As such, our clear view is that the condition should apply only to those operators seeking to commence or expand a significant letter delivery service, but it will not impose any additional burden on, for example, current access competitors, courier services or parcel delivery businesses.
	Finally, Lords amendment 19 addresses concerns, which were again raised in both Houses, about access to postal services. The central concern of hon. Members who have raised this issue is how we can ensure that people right across the country and from all walks of life continue to have access to the high standard of postal service on which they depend. The Bill already specifies that Ofcom’s duties include ensuring that there is provision of sufficient access points to meet the
	reasonable needs of users. In determining those, Ofcom will conduct thorough research and analysis, and consult users to take their views into account. Importantly—this was often misunderstood in our previous debates—Ofcom will also be bound by its broader duties, as set out in the Communications Act 2003, to have regard, among other things, to the needs of persons with disabilities, the elderly, those on low incomes and those living in rural areas.
	I am confident that that will mean that Ofcom’s requirements on the distribution of access points across the country will ensure that all users can continue to post their letters, packets and parcels in a convenient way. However, although we are clear that the reasonable needs of users is the right test, it is conceivable that in some cases the Government will wish to apply different considerations. For example, the Government may have wider public policy objectives to consider, perhaps in relation to rural policy or small business support.
	Such broader public policy goals are rightly a matter for the Government and not for an independent sector regulator. Therefore, amendment 19 allows the Secretary of State to step in and require Ofcom to ensure sufficient access points throughout the United Kingdom to meet the interests of the public. That is not a power that we would ever expect to use—its inclusion simply serves as a fail-safe to address the legitimate, albeit unlikely, concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by colleagues in the other place.
	I hope that this package of regulatory amendments demonstrates that we have listened to the concerns of hon. Members and those in the other place. The amendments constitute a real strengthening of protection for the universal service—an objective that I believe all hon. Members share—and as such, I hope they are warmly welcomed.

Nia Griffith: Lords amendment 17 requires that, when having regard to the requirement for a postal service to be financially viable, Ofcom should include the need for a reasonable commercial rate of return for the universal postal service. We argued this very determinedly in Committee. The provision of the universal postal service constitutes a considerable financial burden and we have seen how, in recent times, the opening up of opportunities for competitors to come in and cherry-pick some invitingly profitable parts of the postal delivery service, leaving the Royal Mail to provide the universal postal service, has led to some considerable controversy about the price charged for the final mile. Royal Mail feels that the price set by Postcomm is too low, while the competitor providers would quite naturally always want the price kept as low as possible.
	We welcome the fact that—as is made clear elsewhere in the Bill—the Royal Mail will continue to be the provider for 10 years after privatisation, not just three. This will provide some much needed stability for the service and make it worth the Royal Mail investing sufficiently in the necessary infrastructure. But crucial to the success and stability of the service is the need for the postal service to be financially viable. It would be immensely disruptive and damaging if a privatised Royal Mail got into difficulties and had to be bailed out. That is one reason it is essential that the regulator, Ofcom, should understand the need for a reasonable commercial
	rate of return for the universal postal service and make its judgements and interventions accordingly. This is common sense, so we shall support this amendment.
	Lords amendments 16 and 18 provide clarity that the requirement for efficiency would apply after a reasonable amount of time and provide a definition of that reasonable period as a period beginning on the day that the provisions of the Bill come into force and which Ofcom considers to be reasonable. These amendments also help to improve the Bill and we shall support them.
	Lords amendment 19 is an extremely important amendment. In Committee, we tried very hard to persuade the Government to amend the Bill to ensure that the post office network was used to provide the network of access points, and we were very disappointed that the Minister chose to turn down the opportunity to show any real commitment to the post office network and refused to accept our amendment on using the post office network to provide the access points to the postal service.
	This Lords amendment does not safeguard the post office network. It does, however, provide some protection for the public, and some reassurance that the Secretary of State may direct Ofcom to take action to ensure that sufficient access points are provided to meet the interests of the public. It is not, however, anything like as specific or forceful as we would have liked. It does not specify, as legislation in some other countries does, the number of access points or their geographical distribution. This is done elsewhere either by specifying a precise number of outlets, as in the German model, or by insisting on specific access criteria, as in the Australian model.
	This amendment is much more subjective and leaves it as a matter of opinion for the Secretary of State to decide what is meant by sufficient access points to meet the interests of the public. Will the Minister clarify the thinking behind this, and specify the number of access points? We understand that the access criteria, as laid down in the document “Securing the post office network in a digital age”, could be met by a network of some 7,000 or 8,000 post offices. When we were in government we put in money to keep open a network of 11,900 post offices, and the present Government are doing likewise. What number of access points is the Secretary of State likely to designate as sufficient to meet the interests of the public? Will it be as many as the current network of post offices, or will it be fewer? If it is the latter, some post offices could cease to be access points for postal services and not only would they lose the third of their income that comes from the Royal Mail work that they do but they would stand to lose a lot more income, as they would lose footfall.
	Access points would not, of course, have to be post offices. We have already seen some very adverse public reaction when post offices have been moved into the upstairs of some high street chains, making them difficult to find and time-consuming to access. Will the Minister clarify the number of access points he envisages meeting the interests of the public, and whether the Secretary of State might also have criteria for the accessibility of access points so that we do not end up with access points that are hard to access?
	Access points does not just mean counter services, but can also include post boxes. Will the Minister give us any indication of what number of post boxes the Secretary of State would consider sufficient to meet the
	interests of the public? Would it be the same number as now, or are we likely to see post boxes removed or boarded up? I say that as someone who has only recently had to fight for Royal Mail to restore a post box at Brynteg in my constituency, and I can well envisage that a profit-hungry privatised Royal Mail would look to reduce the number of post boxes in order to cut down on collection costs. That could mean people losing their local post box and no longer having one within walking distance of their homes. We welcome the amendment because it could improve the chances of a better service to the public, but we would have liked a much stronger amendment to give a stronger guarantee of a comprehensive network of access points.
	We welcome Lords amendment 20 and the consequential amendments 15 and 25, because they enable Ofcom to impose a notification condition on any person providing, or intending to provide, a service within the scope of the universal postal service. Again, this is important for the rational management of the universal postal service, and we should support it. Lords amendment 21 makes a significant change to Ofcom’s review of the costs of the universal service obligation. Whereas previously the Bill specified that Ofcom would have to wait three years from when the Bill came into force before it could carry out a review of the costs of the universal service obligation, the amendment increases the period to five years, unless the Secretary of State intervenes and directs Ofcom to carry out a review. We have not sought amendment 21. Will the Minister clarify under what circumstances the Secretary of State might intervene before the five-year period is up?
	On Lords amendment 22, we have consistently pointed out that the universal service provider incurs very large costs and needs to have as much certainty as possible about its future obligations so that it can plan long term and make the necessary investment in the latest technology. We therefore welcome the amendment, which means that Royal Mail will continue to be the universal service provider for the next 10 years, rather than just the next three years. This is a significant improvement. We know that significant modernisation has taken place within Royal Mail over the past few years. In the evidence sessions, the chief executive, Moya Greene, expressed her pride and delight in the world-class facilities that Royal Mail has in some of its depots, but she also pointed out that there are still areas awaiting modernisation. If Royal Mail is to continue to invest, the certainty of knowing that it will remain the provider of the universal service for the next 10 years will provide a much better basis for doing so than a mere three years. This is very important to create the necessary stability and justify the necessary investment. We therefore welcome the amendment.

Lorely Burt: This final string of amendments is another testimony to how the Government have listened to colleagues on both sides of the House. I greatly welcome a number of the amendments, particularly those that make the duties of Ofcom stronger than under Postcomm. I want to ask the Minister about amendment 19, which specifies that the Secretary of State can override the regulator on access points. We need to be wary about setting up an independent body but saying, “Never mind, the Secretary of State can override it”. We want to be sure that that could be done only to the benefit of the consumer. Bringing politics into the matter concerns
	me a little, so will my hon. Friend confirm that he cannot envisage any circumstances in which the Secretary of State could intervene, perhaps to specify that we do not need as many access points as now?
	I particularly welcome amendment 17. Royal Mail has found it difficult to make a profit given the restraints under which it has had to work. The previous situation was impossible, so I am delighted with the amendment. We had to address the appalling decline in profitability, which was due to the ceiling imposed by the previous Government, who were unwise in their overzealous interpretation of the European legislation. If we can do it now, why could we not have created a more competitive environment for Royal Mail in the past? No one can make a profit with one hand tied behind their back. I particularly welcome Lords amendment 22, which guarantees that Royal Mail will remain a USP for 10 years, thereby removing any lurking uncertainty, which is particularly helpful.
	Finally, Lords amendments 20, 15 and 25 require pre-notification to Ofcom of the planned commencement or expansion of a letters business on a specified scale. That will allow Ofcom to evaluate the potential impact beforehand, not after the stable door is opened and the horse has bolted. I wonder whether the Minister could say a little more about the circumstances in which he would envisage the provisions applying. Opposition Members have rightly raised the spectre of lots of other organisations wanting to come in and expand their letter delivery services, so how will the provisions work to ensure that Royal Mail’s commercial interests remain viable?

Thomas Docherty: I would like to press the Minister on Lords amendments 16 to 19, to clause 28. He has rightly spoken of the need for the Royal Mail to continue to modernise, and I hope to give a simple example of why this is so important.
	The House will recall the severe snow that affected large parts of Scotland last winter, including West Fife in my constituency. Fife was particularly badly hit because of the incompetence of Fife council, which failed to clear the roads and keep traffic moving. That had a huge knock-on effect for the Royal Mail. If residents are struck in villages or large parts of Dunfermline and cannot get out, it would quite obviously be unreasonable to expect the Royal Mail to be able to deliver a regular service, because for genuine health and safety reasons it is vital that posties are not exposed to unnecessary risk. However, the Royal Mail failed to provide a robust contingency programme to deal with the huge backlog that quickly built up.
	It will probably not surprise the House to know that mid-December is a particularly busy time for the Royal Mail, as there is a substantial increase in the volume of packages and cards. Unfortunately, business continues in the build-up to Christmas for many of my constituents. I was approached by a number of small businesses and local law firms that were waiting desperately for important documents—in some cases legal documents—and that were simply unable to get them delivered by the Royal Mail. Many of my constituents showed some initiative and went to the Dunfermline sorting office to see whether they could simply collect their post. However, the Royal
	Mail had no plan in place even to allow local businesses or my constituents to do so, which is a sign of poor planning by Royal Mail management. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined what discussions he has had with the Royal Mail about that lack of strategic or, some might argue, tactical thinking, which should be happening at the local and regional levels.
	The backlog was such that many of my constituents did not receive the parcels and cards that friends and relatives had sent them until the middle of January, which is clearly a most unsatisfactory circumstance. To be fair, after I met the Royal Mail in the build-up to the new year, it took a number of steps, including putting on Sunday deliveries, drafting in additional staff from other sorting offices and putting on extra deliveries. But, with the best will in the world, I hope that the Minister will agree that it should not have been necessary for us to reach a state of chaos before Royal Mail took proactive steps to tackle the problem.
	I would be grateful if the Minister outlined the specific issues he has raised with Royal Mail relating to the modernisation of its procedures. Has he discussed how its policies might become more robust? Has it given him any indication of whether it has learned the lessons, not only from Fife but from across Scotland, in time for next winter? I fear that we might otherwise face a rather challenging set of conditions.

Richard Fuller: I appreciate the opportunity to reassure the hon. Gentleman that he must have misheard what I said. I said precisely what he has just said—that the people who have provided leadership in the Royal Mail group and who have provided a consistency of belief in the ethos of public service provision have been the workers themselves, and that they have been let down by the management over a number of years. I said that the CWU, with the business agreement it put in place, showed that it had learned that it needed to be constructive and positive, and that it provided great leadership. My hope was that, with Moya Greene in place, we have a solid partnership of management, workers and the unions that can move forward. The hon. Gentleman was not always present in Committee; if he had been, he would have heard more clearly that I am strong supporter of the CWU. I am glad for the opportunity to clarify that.

Michael Connarty: I am grateful, and I am glad that we have a solid platform on which to continue the debate.
	It is remarkable that not just myself, but not a single Labour member of the CWU parliamentary liaison group, which worked together with the CWU and the Post Office, was asked to participate in the Committee considering this Bill. I might ask the Minister some detailed questions that he could have answered before if I had been granted access to his knowledge and aspirations
	in Committee. That position will have to be explained by the business managers—not by me, as it has never been explained to me.
	I wish to focus on amendments 21 and 22. Let me provide some background. The 10-year period in amendment 22 for the universal service provider—currently, the Royal Mail—is welcome, but the phrasing of the provision amounts to a get-out clause. Lords amendment 22, as it says in the explanatory notes,
	“would prevent Ofcom from making a procurement determination within 10 years from the day that Part 3 of the Bill comes into force, unless the universal service provider agrees.”
	Thus we have a privatised Royal Mail with a universal service obligation; it has all the burdens, which are not going to be shared properly with others in the business. Others have already cherry-picked much of the provision—TNT, to name just one, and many others come through our door, delivered in the last mailbag by Royal Mail employees. As far as I can see, none of the burden is going to be shared with Royal Mail for providing that universal service; it all falls on the universal service provider.
	By using deductive logic, people can see that the privatisation of the universal service provider, the Royal Mail, should not be continued. We would like Ofcom to look at splitting up the obligation and sharing some of the burden by allowing some other regional post office or mail provider to come in and take on some of it. It is possible that in a privatised scenario, the interests of the Royal Mail—at the moment, the public service provider—will not be the same. As I say, there is a get-out clause.
	Clause 33(5) will permit the Secretary of State to amend the minimum requirements of the universal service postal provision in clause 30—a mail service for six days a week, provided at an affordable and uniform price throughout the UK. Under clause 33(7), an affirmative resolution is required before the Secretary of State can make amendments, but a coalition Government with a majority can easily achieve that. This is predicated on good will, in a sense. On a more negative view, we see these provisions as being nothing but wallpaper for public consumption, which will not help us to face up to the financial problems of a privatised Royal Mail operating in a privatised environment. In that context, it might not be sustainable.
	I am concerned when the amendments can be interpreted in two different ways. I have not had the benefit of interrogating the Minister in Committee, of hearing the Committee debates or of participating in the debates in the House of Lords that led to these amendments being brought forward.
	Lords amendment 21 increases the three-year period in clause 42—which provides for Ofcom to review the extent to which the universal service provider is bearing a financial burden—to five years. If that extension is such a good thing, why is this a Government amendment? Why was it not tabled, here or in the House of Lords, on behalf of the work force, via the Communication Workers Union? What is the reason for the extension?
	The provision of a universal service is one of the great burdens on Royal Mail. Delivering post in parts of the constituency of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) or a constituency in Somerset is much more burdensome than delivering it within the square mile of the City of London. The last Government, which allowed
	commercialisation, were immediately accused of allowing some companies to cherry-pick the deliveries. That is why TNT made so much money: it is much more interested in cities and large conurbations than in the universal service obligation, which covers all the sparse and difficult parts of the country. The capital and work force required by the universal service provider cannot be utilised at its optimum level because of the unevenness of the urban density and geography of the country. Some areas are more profitable than others, but the burden of delivery must still be carried.
	Clause 43 provides for the regulator to consider mechanisms for a burden-sharing arrangement if Ofcom finds that such a burden exists. I welcome that proposal. Ofcom could take three possible courses. It could review the minimum requirements of the universal service under clause 33, which means downgrading the service. The Minister said earlier that that was not one of the Government’s aims. There could be a industry or users’ levy, which has been hotly resisted by the privatised cherry-picking companies which have made a killing from the commercialisation of Royal Mail delivery in the past decade. There could be a “procurement determination”, allowing the universal service provider’s obligation to be changed under clause 43. No one knows what course Ofcom will choose, but we do know that if there is to be any logic and justice in a levy across the industry to help with universal service provision, the Lords amendment will not allow it to happen for five years.
	This is a negative amendment. It leaves Royal Mail with a burden that it cannot shift, cannot share with others, and cannot ask Ofcom to share with others for five rather than three years. Perhaps the Government want that to happen. If that is what they are up to, let them tell us. I know that the extension to five years has been welcomed by those who are currently making a nice killing by cherry-picking certain kinds of mail, but a real problem will face whoever bears the universal service obligation under privatisation. No subsidies will be offered; the provider will have to stand on its own two feet and make a profit. It will have to seek a change.
	The extension to 10 years proposed in Lords amendment 22 is all right as long as the procurement trigger is not used by the universal service provider, but I think that the two proposals are heading in the same direction. Following privatisation, there will be pressure on the universal service provider—currently Royal Mail—to offload some of its universal service obligation. It could do that by means of a change in the number of deliveries. There have already been some changes: there is now only one delivery per day, and letters are not collected from mail boxes between lunchtime on Saturday and 5 pm on Monday. All those adjustments were made under the pressure of commercialisation, but there will be other pressures.
	What worries me particularly is the possibility that regions to which a provider does not want to deliver will be offloaded on to another provider. That provider will then go to the Secretary of State or Ofcom and say, “We cannot make a profit on this.” My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) was asking about this point earlier. The provider will say, “It is not viable, so we want to be able
	to change the arrangement either by cutting the number of deliveries or pick-ups or by altering the price of the delivery.”
	All those options are available under these amendments. It may not be the intention. If it is the intention, the Minister and those who drafted the amendments are being Machiavellian in their approach to the Royal Mail. I do not think they are Machiavellian, however. Frankly, I do not believe they are sufficiently smart; I think they are just blundering along, putting together groups of clauses and amendments that will have unintended consequences.
	I am worried because the Bill, with these amendments, is deeply flawed. There are even flaws in the amendments that we are welcoming now. We are providing for 10-year terms, but it is still possible to get out of that by going to Ofcom and saying, “We can’t make it. We can’t cut the mustard here. We can’t make a profit. Either we give up as a universal service provider and sell out the lot, or you let us break up the franchise.” I think that is what will happen. I have serious reservations, therefore.
	Also, why does the Minister want to extend the time period for Ofcom to be able to review the situation from three years to five years, under amendment 21? Is it to protect those who at present do not want to pay a levy, or to stop the burden sharing being properly looked at, or is it because he wants to save the minimum requirements of the service order? We are not sure. Will he address those concerns to give me the confidence so that I do not choose to press amendment 21 to a Division?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) for her general welcome for many of our amendments. I began my remarks by saying that a degree of consensus had emerged in the other place.
	The hon. Lady spent most of her time talking about access points and amendment 19. We must be clear about what an access point is. It comes from the directive; the definition of an access point and the requirement to provide them flows from the universal postal service directive, and we then define it in this Bill. It would be wrong for us to state that it could only ever be post offices, and to enshrine that in the Bill, because, for instance, some rural communities might need access points in a form that the post office network is unable to provide. I hope that the hon. Lady recognises that it is therefore important to have some flexibility.
	The hon. Lady was concerned about some post offices not being accessible, and gave the example that some of them might be upstairs. In addressing the access points issue, Ofcom will be required to look at the needs of users, and its obligations, under the Communications Act 2003, are much stronger than those of Postcomm, and they include taking account of the needs of disabled people. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady will understand that the accessibility requirements have been improved. On access points more generally, the hon. Lady did not give the Government credit for the fact that in the—signed and legally binding—agreement we have reached with Post Office Ltd providing the £1.34 billion, Post Office Ltd has to secure a network of at least 11,500 post offices. That is the clearest and strongest way to ensure that the network is delivered.
	The hon. Lady had some concerns about amendment 21, and asked why the Secretary of State would intervene before the five years was up. It is sensible to maintain the Secretary of State’s ability to intervene and direct Ofcom to conduct an unfair burden review. That measure adds some flexibility to the Bill. If all the evidence pointed towards there being a need for an unfair burden review, a process to allow a review to be conducted would clearly be beneficial. We wanted that extra flexibility in the Bill.

Edward Davey: We need to have flexibility in the legislation to ensure that if the circumstances are so bad for Royal Mail because technology is having a worse effect than we had expected on its letter flows, we can still provide the universal service. That is what this Bill is about. This extra flexibility ensures that if an unforeseen circumstance arises requiring an unfair burden review before the five years is up, that flexibility is in place. I am glad that the hon. Lady welcomes that.
	I was grateful for the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who acknowledged that these amendments show that the Government have listened. She was concerned that amendment 19 would give the Secretary of State an override. May I assure her that we think it very unlikely that the power would be used? We need to make it clear that the first step is for Ofcom to assess the needs of users, and it will consult the public. We would not expect to use the power, and it is highly unlikely that we would interpret the “interests of the public” as being lower than the “needs of the public”. The words in the amendment should reassure her. The amendment is intended as a broader test to capture elements that the “needs of the public” do not, and that Ofcom is not allowed to consider. I hope that she will be reassured by that.
	My hon. Friend also asked about the notification scheme. I assure her that it is designed to enable Ofcom to act to prevent harmful cherry-picking, which would damage the universal service. Again, this is another tightening up of part 3 and the regulations, to ensure that we can deliver the universal service through this Bill.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) talked about what happened in his constituency following the bad weather just before Christmas, and asked me whether I talked to Royal Mail about them. Of course I regularly meet the management of Royal Mail, and they are committed to providing an excellent service. I think we all accept that the conditions last winter were exceptional and did create lots of problems. Royal Mail took exceptional measures to try to deal with them, including investing £20 million of extra resources to ensure that deliveries could be maintained. Although the details of Royal
	Mail’s operations are, of course, a matter for Royal Mail, it is worth pointing out that in areas of Scotland, including his constituency, the private companies had much greater problems in delivering. Royal Mail acted strongly, made the investment and was able to deliver. As the universal service provider, it showed its strength.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the Munro Report and its implications for child protection.
	I am delighted to have the opportunity to lead the debate, as well as by the number of hon. Members who wish to speak in it. I would like to set out my stall, and although I am supposed to make a winding-up speech, I am keen that we hear from Back Benchers, so I shall keep that to a minimum.
	Today is significant for two reasons. First, this is the only Government-led debate on child protection in Government time that I can recall in my 14 years in the House. The debate is therefore long overdue and it reflects the importance that I and my fellow Ministers attach to child protection. It is an enormous privilege to lead the debate and I look forward to what I am sure will be a constructive discussion, as I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House hold passionate and well-informed views about the subject.
	The second significance is that this week is the first anniversary of the launch of the Munro review of child protection. Hon. Members will remember that this was the first review that was established by the Department for Education. It was launched on 10 June 2010, and that underlined the fact that getting child protection right is an enormous priority for the Government. I know we all share that as a priority, so let me pass on my thanks to all hon. Members, leading organisations in the sector, the child protection work force and the wider public, including children and young people themselves, who contributed in some way to Professor Munro’s report. Their experience, insights and expertise have helped make it a well-informed and widely welcomed report.
	We should not forget that the vast majority of our children enjoy a safe and happy childhood, but even now too many still do not. Some of their names are sadly familiar—Victoria Climbié, Peter Connelly and Khyra Ishaq—but many more are not. Whether we hear about a case in the media or it goes unnoticed by the public, there is always an individual tragedy at its centre. It is those individual tragedies that have so often been the triggers for different reviews and inquiries on child protection over many years. Every one of those reviews has resulted in calls for action, and in response legislation has been passed, rulebooks have been expanded, more procedures and processes have been introduced and structures have been restructured.
	However, the fundamental problems have not gone away. Despite the very best of intentions, our hard-working, dedicated social workers, foster carers and other front-line professionals are too often still unable to make the difference that they want and need to make for vulnerable children and families. Day in, day out, they are up against a system that too often simply does not help them to do their best for children.
	From the start we wanted the Munro review of child protection to be different. That is why, unlike its predecessors, it was commissioned not as a knee-jerk response to a specific tragedy that had hit the headlines; that is why it is recommending that regulation and
	prescription are reduced rather than increased—it is not just another case of adding a few hundred more pages to the “Working Together” guidance; and, most importantly, that is why the review has focused on the child rather than the system. Professor Munro’s final report, “A child centred-system”, is wide ranging. It looks not only at the problems, but at the underlying environment that allows, and sometimes inadvertently encourages, such problems to occur. The review takes an holistic approach to child protection and bases its proposals on evidence and experience.
	The report has been widely welcomed, as I said. The College of Social Work welcomed it as a “huge step forward”. Nushra Mansuri of the British Association of Social Workers described it as
	“Music to the profession’s ears”.
	The Children’s Commissioner praised its emphasis on the child’s right to protection. I am delighted that it has been welcomed as a breath of fresh air for all those hard-working professionals involved in child protection.
	For that success, I have first and foremost to thank Professor Eileen Munro for her expert insight and analysis and the open and collaborative approach she has taken to the review over the past 12 months. I also pay tribute to the reference group that supported her so closely: Melanie Adegbite, District Judge Nick Crichton, Marion Davis, Avril Head, Professor Corinne May-Chahal, Lucy Sofocleous, Dr Sheila Shribman, Daniel Defoe, Professor Sue White, Martin Narey and the great many officials from the Department for Education and beyond who worked tirelessly over the past 12 months. I know that Professor Munro has hugely valued the support, expertise and different perspectives of all members of the reference group.
	The report builds on previous reforms and the work of eminent experts such as Lord Laming, and I pay tribute also to the enormous contribution he has made in this area over so many years. This really is not about criticising previous, well-intentioned efforts to improve the system, but about making the time and space to understand why those efforts did not always work as well as they were intended to and should have done, learning from that to bring about long-term, sustainable reform in the future.
	Eleven years, three months and 17 days since the tragic death of Victoria Climbié I still find myself asking whether the ever more complex systems that were created have actually made children safer now than they were then. Has the enormous additional amount of legislation, regulation and guidance made that much of a difference where it really matters? I fear that the answer may be no. Has, in fact, the child protection system in this country become rather more about protecting the system than about protecting the children whom the professionals went into their professions to protect? That is why it is now of the utmost importance that we restore public confidence in child protection, and restore confidence in the social worker profession and others—not least through those professions themselves.
	The Munro review report seeks to do exactly that. Its fundamental analysis is that the system has become too focused on compliance and procedures and has lost its focus on the needs and experience of children themselves. That interest has occurred not just since the election, however; we started the process when, in opposition, I
	chaired a commission on children’s social workers and we produced the “No More Blame Game” report back in 2007, with contributions from all parties, followed by our policy paper, “Back to the Front Line”, produced before last year’s election.
	Professor Munro makes 15 recommendations for reform. She makes it clear—and I agree—that they need to be looked at in the round, because they are interrelated and impact on the system as a whole. I shall go through them briefly, and in doing so I start by noting that this is an excellent report with which I find little to disagree.
	The first recommendation is to revise the statutory guidance, “Working Together to Safeguard Children”, and the framework for the assessment of children in need and their families to distinguish essential rules from guidance that informs professional judgment, because, although we need rules, it is important that they are the right ones.
	The second recommendation is that the inspection framework examines the effectiveness of the contributions of all local services—including health, education, police, probation and the justice system—to the protection of children.
	The third recommendation is that the inspection framework examines the child’s journey from needing to receiving help, explores how the rights, wishes, feelings and experiences of children and young people inform and shape the provision of services, and looks at the effectiveness of the help provided to children, young people and their families. Too often, do we not hear that, actually, nobody really listened to the child at the centre of a case? We need inspection to look across all the relevant agencies and to focus on the things that really matter: outcomes for children and young people.
	The fourth recommendation is that local authorities and their partners use a combination of nationally collected and locally published performance information to help benchmark performance, to facilitate improvement and to promote accountability. It is crucial that performance information is not treated as an unambiguous measure of good or bad performance, as performance indicators tend to be, because it is important that performance data are used intelligently to drive improvement in practice.
	The fifth recommendation is that the existing statutory requirement for local safeguarding children boards to produce and publish an annual report for the local children’s trust board are amended to require its submission instead to the chief executive and the leader of the council.
	The sixth recommendation is that “Working Together to Safeguard Children” is amended to state that, when monitoring and evaluating local arrangements, LSCBs should, taking account of local need, include an assessment of the effectiveness of the help being provided to children and families, and the effectiveness of multi-agency training to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people. Local safeguarding children boards play a vital role, and I see a much enhanced future for them as the linchpin of how we get this right.
	The seventh recommendation is that local authorities give due consideration to protecting the discrete roles and responsibilities of a director of children’s services
	and a lead member for children’s services before allocating any additional functions to individuals occupying such roles. We know that that is an important concern, and it has come up in the House recently.
	The eighth recommendation is that the Government work jointly with the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of General Practitioners, local authorities and others to research the impact of health reorganisation on effective partnership arrangements and the ability to provide effective help for children who are suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm. I shall discuss that point further, but the implementation board, which will put forward these reforms, is heavily weighted—over-weighted in fact—towards health, and it is important that it should be.
	The ninth recommendation is that LSCBs use systems methodology when undertaking serious case reviews with accredited, skilled and independent reviewers and have a stronger focus on disseminating learning nationally. Ofsted’s evaluation of SCRs should end, because serious case reviews need to be about learning rather than about processes or the story of a case; they need to be about supporting analysis, beyond identifying what happened, in order to explain why it happened. They should not be all about blaming people, because blaming individuals for errors and mistakes is unhelpful and counter-productive. Rather than having a blame culture where people try to conceal mistakes, surely it is better for people to work together to identify errors early so that they can be managed or minimised, often through the redesign of local systems. That is not to say that people should go without any repercussions when things have gone wrong, but simply wagging the finger of blame has clouded our judgment too much in the past. The name of the report that we produced in 2007—“No More Blame Game”—is as appropriate now as it was then.

Tim Loughton: The Chairman of the Select Committee on Education again makes a very good point and he has a good deal of expertise on this matter. It is completely self-defeating for newly recruited social workers to be turfed in at the deep end on tier 3 or 4 cases—serious cases—with little experience or expertise. How demoralising is that, let alone the danger it poses for the vulnerable children who need to have the appropriate level of support?
	A number of things need to be done and they are being done. We need to ensure that we have the right calibre of people coming out of universities with degrees in social work. In the first year after their qualification, they should be given on-the-job guidance and training, preferable by people with great expertise. They should be eased into jobs at an appropriate rate in appropriate circumstances. My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Virtually every week I speak to social workers
	and visit children’s services departments—I make a point of seeing social workers on the front line—but I have met too many who are given challenges for which they are not appropriately equipped at that stage.
	I should like to make progress now because I am keen for other hon. Members to contribute and I have a few more points to make. I got up to recommendation 10—I do not know why recommendation 9 brought about the pause that it did. Recommendation 10 is that the Government should place a duty on local authorities and statutory partners to secure the sufficient provision of local early help services for children, young people and families. That is very appropriate to the early intervention work that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has been doing for the Department.
	Recommendation 11 is that the social work reform board’s professional capabilities framework should incorporate the capabilities necessary for child and family social work. That is precisely the point that the Chairman of the Education Committee just raised. That framework should explicitly inform social work qualification training, postgraduate professional development and performance appraisal.
	Recommendation 12 is that employers and higher education institutions should work together so that social work students are prepared for the challenges of child protection work, including through better quality placements.
	Recommendation 13 is that local authorities and their partners should start an ongoing process to review and redesign the ways in which child and family social work is delivered.
	Recommendation 14—I am almost there without taking another intervention—is that local authorities should designate a principal child and family social worker who can report the views and experiences of the front line to all levels of management. I have too often seen good social workers, who have built up good reputations and who are really good hands-on, get promoted, become managers and get stuck behind a desk. In that way, we lose front line expertise. Some models, such as the one in Hackney, mean that people can gain seniority within their profession but not lose contact with people at the sharp end and the families that they entered the profession to help.
	The 15th and final recommendation is that a chief social worker should be created to advise the Government and to bring the voice of the profession to policy. That was discussed recently in relation to the Health and Social Care Bill, and it was a recommendation of my report back in 2007.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman is right. An understandable result of what happened with baby P is that social workers have become more risk averse. If it is a marginal decision, they might take the child into care just in case, whereas if they have the time, space and appropriate tools and applications to deal with that family, it might be possible to keep it together rather than break it up.
	I have set out Professor Munro’s recommendations for reform. Rightly, they address every aspect of the system. Rightly, they place the child at the centre. And rightly, they have as a basic principle the importance of placing trust in skilled professionals at the front line. It is of course the case that there are vulnerable children outside the immediate child protection system, and we need to improve radically how they are supported and make sure that they have a voice.
	One of the main groups of such vulnerable children, for which I have responsibility, is of course children in care. With more than 64,000 children in care at the moment, we need to improve all aspects of their lives, including placement stability, education, health and the transition to adulthood, which are all priorities for Government and the wider sector. If we get Munro’s proposals right, there will be benefits for all those involved in children’s social care, not just those at the acute end of child protection.
	From 1 April, we introduced a new statutory framework for looked-after children, which is far more streamlined, coherent and clear about the “must dos” for local authorities. In particular, we have brought together the care planning regulations and guidance into one volume, which should ultimately help councils put together better care plans. Less is often more. We have also strengthened the role of independent reviewing officers so they can challenge poor care plans, and make sure children’s voices are at the heart of all reviews. We have given clear steers in the revised fostering guidance about how local authorities should support foster carers and children
	better. The revised transition guidance makes it clear that young people should leave care only when they are ready and have a strong support package in place.
	I have also written to every local authority about foster carers being encouraged to treat foster children in their care no differently from their own children. In March, I launched the foster carers’ charter, which sets out clear principles for the support that should be available, what foster carers can expect and what foster children can expect of their carers.
	I also launched earlier this year the Tell Tim website so that carers and, in particular, children and young people in care can let me—as the Minister responsible—know directly what they think is working well, what improvements they think need to be made or what is going wrong. I have also set up reference groups so that I can hear from foster children, care leavers, adopted children and children living in residential homes. Just this week, I met my regular group of young people who have left the care system, who recount their often moving and relevant experiences of what is going wrong in the system. We could all learn a lot if we spent more time with the children who are still being failed because, through no fault of their own, they have become part of the care system.
	As hon. Members will be aware, some children and young people—including young runaways—become victims of sexual exploitation. The report published by Barnardo’s in January, “Puppet on a String”, highlighted the scale and severity of this horrific abuse. I pay tribute to Barnardo’s work and expertise in this area and I especially congratulate Anne Marie Carrie for hitting the ground running in her first few months at the helm of Barnardo’s.
	The Government are determined to do everything possible to stamp out this abuse and safeguard vulnerable children and young people. Recent events brought to light in the midlands through Operation Retriever and the other ongoing police investigations underline the extent of this insidious abuse. As the lead Minister in this area, I have been urgently considering, with my colleagues at the Home Office, Barnardo’s and other national and local partners, what further action should be taken. The Government are now committed to working with partners to develop over the summer an action plan to safeguard children and young people from sexual exploitation. This will build on existing guidance and our developing understanding of this dreadful abuse, including through local agencies’ work around the country. It will include work on effective prevention strategies, identifying those at risk of sexual exploitation, supporting victims, and taking robust action against perpetrators.
	Another area where excessive central prescription has had unintended consequences, leading to risk aversion rather than risk management, is in vetting and barring. The Government believe that children will be better protected if we move away from unnecessary and top-down bureaucracy towards more responsible decision-making at a local level. It is vital to balance the need to protect the vulnerable against the need to respect individuals’ freedoms, and not to create a system that imposes unnecessary burdens on individuals or organisations. That is why the Government undertook a review of the barring and criminal records regimes in order to scale them back to common-sense levels. We need to get away
	from a system that has unintentionally driven a further wedge between children growing up and well-meaning adults who come forward genuinely to offer their time to volunteer and to work with young people. They have been deterred from doing so by all the regulation.
	I spoke earlier about the action we were taking to improve the lives and prospects of children in care. For many of those children, adoption will be the most appropriate outcome, which is why in February I issued new guidance with a call to arms to local authorities to re-energise their efforts on adoption and improve front-line practice. This refreshed and improved statutory guidance will be an important element in the Government’s programme of reform aimed at supporting adoption agencies in removing barriers to adoption, reducing delay and continually improving their adoption services.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Lady is right and will know that we have been doing a lot of work on adoption. I have set up a ministerial advisory group with all sorts of people, and we have issued new guidance, as I said earlier. We need to balance timeliness with appropriateness to ensure that where it is clear—it is not always so—that an adoptive placement is the best way forward and in the best interests of the child, we get on with it.
	There are, I have to say, some people who, usually because of excessive addiction to drugs and alcohol and a complete failure to rehabilitate, will never be able safely to bring up children in their care. I have sat in family courts and seen parents—usually single mothers— have their ninth, 10th or 11th child taken into the care
	system. If that parent’s situation has not improved, can we be sure that it will ever improve? Need we take that risk, and wait years while a child is kept in an abusive situation? Again, those decisions require the judgment of Solomon, which is why I will shortly be holding a round-table meeting with a group of judges from the family court, directors of children services and chairmen of adoption panels to consider how we can make the adoption process better, more efficient, more robust and fairer; to ensure that we are making the right decisions for the too many children who are left in the system and could benefit from adoption; and to ensure that we are not taking into adoption children for whom it is not appropriate. I know that there are concerns there as well.
	Finally, we need to remember in our policies the particular needs of vulnerable young people and the fact that they have the same right to enjoy the rich experiences of growing up, the transition to adulthood and becoming valuable members of society as those lucky enough to be part of safe, loving and stable birth families of their own. I recognise that it is vital for the sensible policy put forward by Professor Munro to be backed up by proper investment. As my hon. Friends will be aware, the Government have already announced some funding to support work force development, but the real cost is the cost of failure. The current system needs fixing. Because it needs fixing, huge amounts of resource are wasted. One local authority that has been working with Professor Munro and the review team as a “journey authority” calculated that around 50% of its children’s social care workers’ time is wasted in nugatory activity that does not add to the quality of service or outcomes, which is something that the authority is now starting to recoup—a resounding endorsement of the need to eliminate unnecessary red tape if ever there were one.
	Few things are more important than helping and protecting vulnerable children and young people. In our first year in government, we have shown in the wide range of actions that we have taken—on child protection, children in care, adoption, fostering and dealing with the sexual exploitation of children—that we are deeply committed to tackling these issues, and I am determined to ensure that we make progress. Sadly, we need to recognise that despite Government reforms and the hard work of professionals, tragedies will still happen. There are individuals who will harm children. We cannot eliminate that risk, but we can all work to help to reduce and manage it—indeed, we all have a duty to do so. Society is right to expect professionals to take responsibility and make the best judgments that they can in the best interests of children. Those judgments will not always be the right ones, but they need to have been made for the right reasons and on the best possible evidence.
	This Government believe that we need to move towards a child protection system with less central prescription and interference, and in which we place greater trust and responsibility in skilled professionals on the front line. Professor Munro has provided us with a thorough analysis of the issues. It is now for the Government, working with the sector, to help to bring about sustainable reform. That is why I have established an implementation working group, drawing in expertise from local authority children’s services, the social work profession, education, police and the health service, to
	work with the Government to develop a response to Professor Munro’s recommendations by the summer recess. We are today publishing on the Department for Education website the first account of the group’s deliberations, which started at the end of last month.

Toby Perkins: I echo the Minister’s welcome for the work of Professor Munro, and thank her and everyone involved in the production of the report. I also give the Government credit for commissioning this important piece of work. Unlike many other reports on social work, this review has not been produced in the immediate aftermath of a specific, much-publicised tragedy. It takes a holistic view of how we could protect the most vulnerable children in our society better. I also echo my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) in welcoming the tone of the Minister’s remarks today. We look forward to working constructively with the Government to take forward Professor Munro’s recommendations.
	Protecting our most vulnerable children is crucial, difficult and emotionally charged work. Providing the most resilient environment in which to protect children
	is a responsibility that has challenged and exercised Governments of every hue for many years. I pay tribute to the many hundreds of social workers who, through their hard work, commitment and professionalism, literally save lives. Social workers know that theirs is often a thankless task. When they perform at the top of their game to improve lives for the better, safeguarding children from harm and assisting families to get back on to the right path, they rarely get bouquets or thanks. They do not expect to get even a mention in the local free paper. Their own satisfaction at having made a difference has to suffice. But they also know that should any of the multitude of their borderline decisions be proved, with the benefit of hindsight, to have been wrong, and should a tragedy then occur, they will be on the front page of every newspaper in the land and held to account for their decisions.
	It is in that context that Professor Munro produced her report, and that the previous Government took many significant steps to support the social work profession and our children. It is also in that context that we all have a duty to speak up for the importance of the work that social workers do, and to recognise the knife-edge nature of much of their decision making in an imperfect world.
	I shall also follow the Minister’s lead in thanking foster carers across the country for their invaluable work. I know from personal experience how vital their role is. I also welcome the measures to make the route to adoption a quicker one. As an adoptive parent myself, I know the importance of children being taken on by a new family as early as possible, once they have been identified as suitable for adoption.
	This is not the first report on protecting children to call for a change in society’s attitudes towards and expectations of the social work profession. Nor is it the first to call for an approach that puts children at the heart of our thinking on this subject, but it is no less valuable or right to call for these things just because they have been spoken of before. We recognise that in this vital area, progress is always more easily made when there a sense that all the parties involved are working together constructively and positively, and there is a great deal in the report that we are happy to support enthusiastically. It builds on many of the reforms that the previous Government embarked on, and endorses many of the structures that they implemented. It also builds on the work of the social work taskforce and the social work reform board, whose contribution the review warmly endorses.
	I shall turn now to the specific recommendations in the review. In calling for a child-centred approach, it recognises that the needs and rights of the child, and the child’s involvement in and ownership of a process that might be happening at a confusing and frightening time in their lives, must be paramount. We absolutely support that idea, and recognise that children must feel that the interventions and decisions being made about their future should involve them and not just be a process that happens to them. We are pleased that the review recognises that we all owe a debt of gratitude to the firm foundations of reform laid down by the social work taskforce. Among many other reforms introduced by the Labour Government, the report recommends the
	protection of, and specifically cautions against the dilution of, the role of directors of children’s services. I shall return to that point later. The report also endorses the vital role of the College of Social Work in lifting standards and representing the profession internally within local authorities and more broadly across all parts of our society.
	The report gives further support to local safeguarding children boards, and to the 10 principles of the assessment framework. We hope that, as recommended in the review, the position of chief social worker will be able to play a key role in promoting the interests of children through the improvement of the profile and professionalism of social work, and through influencing Government policy on behalf of children and the profession.
	We will support any efforts that will improve the standing of social work. This includes its profile within the media and among the wider public. It includes helping to make social work a career of choice for talented graduates, helping to build the self-esteem of the social work profession and, within the House, recognising the debt we all owe to the profession for the work it does on behalf of our most vulnerable children and families.

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend will have heard my earlier intervention on the Minister about the status of social workers, and I am sure he will have agreed with me. Does he also agree with how important it is to have some sort of steer or directive for local government to take on newly qualified social workers and to provide them with the relevant training and entry into the profession? I observe huge cuts taking place in local government all over the country, as a result of which there are fewer new job opportunities for qualified social workers—and therein lies a problem 10, 15 or 20 years down the line.

Craig Whittaker: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this excellent review.
	Strikingly, we knew as far back as 2009 that some social workers spent more than 80% of their time in front of paperwork, rather than out on the front line, face to face with children and families. Cameron’s quotation:
	“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted,”
	published in 1963, has never been more apt than it is to our over-bureaucratic and compliance-ridden system. The focus on early intervention, also highlighted in the Allen, Field and Dame Clare Tickell reviews, shows the long-term benefits to the enrichment of families on the whole, as well as the massive reduced burden on the cost to the state, and it can only highlight the need to turn that huge supertanker in a different direction.
	It is time that we put social workers on the professional platform that they deserve. We need to develop a system in which child protection truly is a multi-agency business involving not only social workers but schools, police and health workers all finally working together—a system that removes constraints on local innovation and professional judgment. But let us not be under any illusions about the time that it will take to change mindsets and to implement the changes needed. The system has been so burdened for far too long.
	I will hone in on the role of the lead member for children’s services in local authorities, a position that Professor Munro says should not be undermined. Having
	spent three years as lead member for children’s services on Calderdale council, I believe that the lead member role needs to be looked at and enhanced through further guidance. I know only too well how brilliant a lead member is and how brilliant they are considered when they are out there batting for that extra £1 million in the budget, but the moment they start asking tricky or challenging questions they can almost see and feel the shutters closing down around them.
	One good thing that the previous Government did introduce, just over two years ago, was the lead member’s membership of the local safeguarding children’s board, albeit on a limited basis as a participant observer. With that privilege, I could at least challenge partner agencies, and had it been introduced earlier I might have been able to use it as a tool to deep-dive issues even further.
	Generally, however, partner agencies were not the only problem, because they chose to work traditionally in silos; it was also down to our directorate. The problem started at the top in Calderdale, which, like most authorities in the UK, has an educationist as its director of children’s services. Educationists also take up most head of service roles. Educationists and social workers generally lack the professional knowledge and understanding of each other’s roles, and without question there is professional snobbery between the two.
	Just imagine, then, how it was for a lead member with only 30 years’ retail and people management experience going into that lion’s den. As one head of service once said to me, “With all due respect, you are only a shopkeeper.” A tongue-in-cheek comment, I know, but the battle line was drawn.
	The lead member is also generally part time and often from a totally different sector. They are the only councillor with legal responsibilities, but when things do not go as well as they should, as was the case for me in Calderdale, gaining access to information can be hugely cumbersome. The information is often non-existent, and frankly the lead member can hear those shutters going down around them.
	Interestingly, Professor Munro mentions Klein’s view on intuition, and with my managerial experience and intuition it became evident to me early on that we had a head of service who was not fit for purpose, an information service that was wholly inadequate, a children’s service base budget that was under-resourced to the tune of £1.5 million, a work force with low morale and a high proportion of agency staff, core and initial assessments woefully behind on time scales, two serious case reviews in the pipeline and a children’s trust in name only—and all that was just the headline stuff. When I challenged those responsible for the day-to-day running of CYP services, there were always reasoned responses and excuses, but that is often exactly what they were—excuses. It took three heads of service, three serious case reviews and more than two years before the appointment of a new director of children’s services, who agreed to an independent review by PricewaterhouseCoopers, before we managed to get a truthful picture of how bad things were in Calderdale regarding safeguarding.
	Professor Munro mentions the role of the lead member staying the same. I would like the Government to consider four key points, if I can get them in very quickly. First,
	the lead member, who is currently a participant observer, should be a full-time member of the local safeguarding children board. Secondly, I would like the Minister to consider the fact that there is no mandatory training for the lead member role. Training of sorts is available, but it is difficult to accommodate if they have a full-time job. Thirdly, will the Minister consider guidance on making the lead member role a four-year term for the sake of continuity? Calderdale is now on its fourth in three years.
	Finally, may I ask the Minister to look at the leadership—

Meg Munn: If the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) wants to intervene on me at an appropriate point, perhaps he can get his fourth point in.
	I welcome this debate and this report. Child protection is an important issue that has been given too little attention, generally having periods of intense focus following the death or serious injury of a child or children. No one could disagree with the aims set out by Professor Munro, but I want to look at some issues that are perhaps more nuanced than the Minister set out in his speech.
	Looking back, we have had investment in the past. From 1998, we had the Quality Protects programme, which made a big difference to social services; I speak from personal experience. More recent work done by the previous Government should be built on. Indeed, Professor Munro identifies the need to build on the firm foundations of reform created by the Social Work Taskforce and the Social Work Reform Board. Let us not reinvent the wheel where we do not need to.
	Importantly, Professor Munro recognises the multi-agency nature of this field. There is a danger of other Government policies making child protection more difficult. I am concerned not only about the cuts but about the proposals for how things are to be done. The all-party child protection group, which I chair, and of which many members are present, will be carrying out an inquiry into the proposals on vetting and barring, and I hope that that is helpful. The next session is on Monday—a little advert there—and I hope to see many Members attending to look at this in detail.
	We need to be aware of the importance of child protection for children in all settings. Looked-after children have been mentioned, and the residential sector is important. On health, what is going to happen as result of the abolition of primary care trusts? The PCTs have played an essential role in local safeguarding because they can give an overview and they are able to get involved in the wider issues of what is happening in their local area. I fear that the proposals do not deal with ensuring proper, effective child protection policies for the future. I also have worries about the role of the police.
	I have great concerns about education. I will not go into those in detail now, as I have raised them with the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb),
	who was here earlier. Certain aspects of the Education Bill put children at risk, and the Government need to deal with that.
	I am also concerned about the localism agenda. The recommendations in chapter 4 on accountability lead us to believe that there are clear tensions in this respect. We should be able to specify what needs to be done, and there should be ways of following best practice while ensuring some local flexibility. The Government need to address that properly.
	I want to speak briefly about the recording of information and time scales. That debate has been conducted in a one-dimensional way. Poor IT systems have made life difficult. However, it is significant that every major inquiry into child deaths has identified two things at fault: poor information-sharing between different professions in contact with children and poor recording of information. Not only is good recording essential to enable effective continuity of support for children, sometimes over years or when somebody is on leave, but it is part of the process that social workers need to go through to reflect on a family’s situation. The idea that the only work of a social worker is direct face-to-face contact is false.
	I echo the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) about moving to the use of all localised forms. Frankly, that would take us back round the circle. Thirty years ago when I started in social work, every local authority used a different form and a different process. Not only did that involve lots of people writing those forms and producing guidance, but it meant that when people moved authorities, it took even experienced staff a long time to understand the systems and procedures. I know that the Minister is genuinely committed to this agenda, and I commend him for that, but I urge him to consider a middle way.
	I also urge the Minister to consider a middle way for serious case reviews. He and I have disagreed on the publication of serious case reviews in full, and I will not rehearse those arguments now because I do not have time. However, I think that he should have held back, carried out a review, and put in place a new system. In my experience, not only are full case reviews poor learning tools, but sometimes their publication means that people do not come forward. There was a well-publicised case in Sheffield only a year ago of serious intergenerational abuse. The people in that family would not have come forward if they had thought that their information would be put into the public domain.
	This is an important review in many ways, and we need to go into it in more detail. I ask the Minister to give more detail on how a wider group of people beyond his implementation group can have an input into the recommendations to ensure that we get the best possible things out of the review for the benefit of children, social workers and all who work in this important area.

Bill Esterson: I add my welcome for the work of Professor Munro and the recommendations in her report. The huge challenge for Ministers is how to put them into practice. I welcome the Minister’s announcement of the group that will be set up, and the expertise of the people who will be on it. I ask him to consider including a member of the Opposition in that group—other than a Labour councillor. He knows what I mean by that.
	I want to speak about my concerns about the speed of intervention and the impact of neglect that does not hit the headlines through serious case reviews. I should mention one of my interests in the matter—I am an adoptive parent. When I trained as an adoptive parent, we were presented with evidence that over an extended period, neglect is often, although not always, far more damaging to a child or young person than physical or sexual abuse. That is why it is so important to consider neglect.
	I will quote the comments of a senior NHS professional, who writes:
	“Child protection’s preventative role in protecting vulnerable children/young people from neglectful behaviours is hindered and hampered by a lack of clarity and legislative support to recognise the impact of neglect on a child or young person until it reaches a threshold for ‘significant harm’. This results in an inability to respond in a timely manner until it is too late to prevent harm from occurring.
	Practitioner tools and chronologies to identify and recognise these neglectful behaviours do not provide the requisite evidence base to support care proceedings or child in need packages that put the child in focus.”
	She continues:
	“Legislation needs to provide clarity of definition and recognise the impact of neglectful behaviours. The practitioners need to be provided with definitions which are not retrospective; in other words the legal system needs to recognise neglectful behaviours as significant before ‘significant harm’ has been caused to a child or young person, by which time it is too late.”
	The Minister spoke about the importance of trying to keep families together and used the phrase “fostering families”. It is important that that is given every chance, but I am aware—this is the point made by that health professional—that in far too many cases, the balance is skewed too far in that direction. It can take too long, and evidence of potential neglect is ignored. Early recognition, and action on it, is essential. The evidence that I have seen, of which other Members will be well aware, shows that the long-term damage of extended neglect is incredibly bad for people psychologically and for their mental health long into adulthood.
	To come back to the comments that one or two hon. Members have made, those in foster care are not universally treated as one of the family, because there are too many
	barriers. Too many rules prevent foster carers from getting close to children for that to happen meaningfully in reality.
	I welcome the Minister’s comments on learning from care leavers—that needs to continue. On the issue of neglect, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) said that striking the right balance between protecting the vulnerable child and the rights of the individual is incredibly important. From the experience of constituents who have spoken to me, far too often, the rights of the individual parent are given greater prominence than the needs and rights of the child.
	Because I am an adoptive parent, I shall speak briefly in the time I have left about adoption. I welcome the comments in the report on reducing the delay in getting children through to adoption, but there are serious blockages in finding families. Measures for finding good families in adoption and fostering are very important, as is providing long-term support. There is a lack of support for foster carers and a lack of long-term support for adopters. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board.
	The delays in the courts cause great concerns to professionals and families. The courts are still far too slow. I am aware of a case in which some children from a large family were adopted and some went into long-term foster care. One child ended up back with the mother because the court refused to look at the evidence from social services, which had originally issued the order for the family to go into care. The system is quite unworkable, because the neglect remained after the child returned.
	I welcome the report. This is a long-term project, and I hope that Members on both sides of the House come together to support it.

Tim Loughton: What an excellent fourth point that was! It was well worth waiting for. When we were in opposition we said that the chairs of local safeguarding children boards should be independent. I think that the boards should include lead members and perhaps directors of children’s services, in whatever role, but they should be independently chaired. If LSCBs are to make progress and have more teeth and more importance, that will be an even more important factor in the future. I am glad that my hon. Friend managed to get his fourth point in.
	So, we have one shopkeeper turned lead member of children’s services. We also have one head of a very successful children’s charity who has enormous expertise in attachment. We have a Member who I think used his first Adjournment debate to discuss adoption, including some cases in his constituency. We have another new Member who has taken up the cudgels on behalf of constituents who are concerned about abuses of adoption. And we have one conspiracy theorist. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming); we disagree on many aspects of this issue, but he is assiduous and he rightly acknowledged that we had given him as much information as possible. We disagree on the interpretation of that information and we will continue to do so, but he has certainly got his teeth into this subject.
	We have had an excellent debate. I do not have time to refer to every point that has been raised, but the personal experience that has been brought to bear today does the House credit. There has been overwhelming support for the principle, the thrust and the exhaustive nature of the Munro review. The hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) said that it was well researched and the result of extensive consultation. She also said that too much of what social workers have to do may be technically correct but inexpert in its findings.
	The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) made some excellent points. I thank him for his welcome for the report, and we look forward to working with Members on both sides of the House on carrying forward its recommendations. This is an evidence-based review, and I want to see Government policy guided by evidence, and by things that work and actually improve the outcomes for children at the sharp end. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich pointed out that this is not rocket science, and ask why it had not been done before.
	The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) mentioned the very good work of the social work taskforce and the social work reform board. We acknowledge that that work was undertaken under the previous Government. When we set up the Munro review, the first thing I said was that it was not intended to take the place of or to rubbish the work that had gone before; it was to complement that work. The first person Eileen Munro went to see was Moira Gibb, the head of the reform board. Members of the reform board have worked on the review and are now working in the implementation group.
	The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) mentioned the mixed destinations of siblings who are taken into adoption or care. That is a really important point, and I want to do a lot more work on it. I have heard too many horrific stories of families being broken up. At a time when they cannot rely on the stability and familiarity of their birth parents, it is crucial that they should have the familiarity of contact with their siblings when they desperately need some kind of anchor. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) has had great experience of children in the care system, and she told the House that the incidence of mental health issues and homelessness was absolutely appalling.
	I thank everyone in the Chamber for an excellent debate. We are absolutely determined to carry forward the recommendations of the Munro review. Today’s debate will help to inform our response, and I look forward to receiving the help of all hon. Members to ensure that we get this right. I am up for that challenge, as are the House and the Government, and we are going to make this work.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the Munro Report and its implications for child protection.

Charles Walker: I am very interested by what the hon. Gentleman says, but this evening’s debate is not about classification. A Health Minister will respond to it. However, classification might be a subject for another debate here, and if the hon. Gentleman tables a motion for such a debate I shall certainly support him.
	For many young people, smoking skunk cannabis is like holding a loaded gun to their heads. It might not kill them—they may continue to have a life—but if they suffer from severe psychosis or schizophrenia, it will not be much of a life. It might be just an existence.
	The Government need to get to grips with this, but the problem is that law makers and the clinicians who advise them view cannabis through the prism of their own experiences in the 1970s and 1980s, and, as I said earlier, things have moved on since then. The drug with which we are dealing now is highly toxic and highly dangerous. We must talk not about harm reduction, but about harm prevention.
	We are responsible adults. I have had enough of the current trend of everyone trying to make adults children’s best friends. I am not my children’s best friend; I am their parent—I am their father and I must guide them and have their interests at heart. That is the duty of adults. We must not abrogate responsibility. We have to make young people aware of the risks they run if they smoke skunk cannabis.
	I have an admission to make here tonight. I was the beneficiary of very good drugs education at the age of 14 and 15. I was educated in the mid-’80s. I have not lived a blameless life. There are things I have done in my past that I am ashamed of and I wish I had not done, but, as the Prime Minister said, everyone is entitled to a pass. There were many drugs, but the one drug I really did not touch was LSD, because I was told that if we take LSD just once, we can have a bad trip and that can be the end; we may never return from that experience—the gate in our brain that opens up may never close. If we are lucky enough in our youth to survive using it intact as a whole person, we might in our mid-40s—as I am now—be driving our children back from football practice and suddenly start hallucinating again. That terrified me. The idea that I could lose my brain and my future terrified me, and ensured that at a time when LSD was rife in London I never—ever—touched it.
	Drug education works, but we need to educate the educators. They need to be aware of the research that shows a strong causal link between skunk cannabis, psychosis and schizophrenia. As I have said, our health trusts are full of young people suffering the consequences. Families are being destroyed.
	I will conclude by saying just a few more words. In an ideal world—let us have lofty ambition and strive for an ideal world—I do not want any youngster to take drugs. It is not a good thing to do; it is not good for their health, their future or their prospects. I will just say this,
	however: it is a lot easier to repair a septum in one’s nose than to repair a brain. Once our brain is gone, often the best pharmaceutical drugs in the world will not bring it back again—that is it. I have talked to dozens of parents across the country who are facing up to the fact that their children—the children they love, and brought into the world and nurtured—now have no future but simply an existence to look forward to. I do not think that is good enough, and I do not want to settle for it.
	So here is my call to action for the Government: please take this matter seriously. Skunk cannabis has changed over the past 30 years. It is a major public health risk. It is robbing thousands of people of an opportunity to live fulfilled lives. I have worked with the Minister, and she has been fabulous up to this point, and I am sure she will continue her efforts to get this topic higher up the Department’s agenda.
	Finally, I want to pay tribute to my enormously good friend, Mary Brett, a former teacher who has worked for decades in the interests of young people and their welfare.

Anne Milton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) for raising an issue that is not only important, but seems to be attracting more attention in recent years. It was a pleasure to meet him and representatives of Cannabis Skunk Support, Mary Brett and Jeremy Edwards. In part, this greater attention is down to my hon. Friend’s work and that of the all-party groups on cannabis and children and on mental health.
	I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend because although he is always passionate, his passion for this issue shone through in his eloquent and, at times, moving speech. This issue affects us all. We have been young ourselves and he was very open about his personal experience. Many of us are parents and our children are growing up in an increasingly complicated world, and the problem cannot be ignored.
	Cannabis is the most commonly used drug in England today, and its use is particularly common among younger people. One of the big problems is that of perception. Many people see cannabis as benign, harmless, a throwback to the ‘60s—I am showing my age—‘70s or ‘80s, or a source of artistic inspiration, particularly when compared with other, harder drugs. That is a very dangerous misconception these days. For a start, when people talk about the cannabis smoked 50 years ago, they are referring to something very different from that which we see on the streets today.
	As my hon. Friend mentioned, the most common form of cannabis used today is skunk, which is, on average, about four times stronger than herbal cannabis, the type with which some in this House might be familiar. It does not take a leap of faith to understand that regularly using cannabis of this strength could be very harmful indeed. It could result in dependence, for example, or in the development of serious mental health side effects. Those can be both short and long term, and can be devastating for anyone, including children and young people, causing a host of problems, including family breakdown and debt, and the sort of tragic stories that we heard about from my hon. Friend.
	Questions still do exist about just how strong the link is between cannabis use and mental health problems, but there is without doubt a link—that much is certain. Using cannabis can lead to serious problems, such as psychotic episodes and other mental health issues. In the case of young people, whose brains are still growing and developing, that is a particular cause for concern. Any damage caused then could affect them for the rest of their lives. The fact is that the best way to prevent damage like that is to avoid cannabis in the first place, but we are not stupid and we know that many people, both young and old, will be put in situations where cannabis is offered to them, so we need to take some very clear action.
	The drug strategy that we published in December 2010 outlined action that we will take to prevent and reduce the demand for drugs, by establishing a “whole life” approach to the problem. That involves breaking the intergenerational paths to dependency by supporting vulnerable families; providing good quality education and advice so that young people and their parents are provided with credible information actively to resist substance misuse; and, of course, intervening early with young people and young adults. My hon. Friend mentioned the need to educate the educators, and it is important that those giving support get continued support in their work.
	The latest data show that almost 9% of 11 to 15-year-olds reported taking cannabis in the past year. Although that is a long-term decrease, it is still too many. Those data show us two things: that the situation is improving and that drug use is by no means normal behaviour among young people. That is an important fact for young people to take on board. The Department for Education is taking action to maintain that decline. A review is going on into personal, social, health and economic education, which includes drug education, to determine how schools can be better supported. Of course, schools are not the only setting in which we can undertake this sort of educational programme. I will also be meeting the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) to discuss these issues soon.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne also mentioned FRANK. Our drug strategy highlights the important role that FRANK has to play in providing information and advice, both to young people and to their parents or guardians. A review of how FRANK is used showed that the vast majority of young people preferred accessing FRANK online. Based on that review, as I recently discussed with my hon. Friend, we are in the process of improving the FRANK service, making it easier to use the website. We are also updating the tone and style of its language, so that it is more relevant to young people and provides them with the information and advice they need in a way that is accessible and provides clear messages.
	We are also taking other steps to help people who already have a problem. In March, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence produced guidance on the assessment and management of people with
	psychosis and co-existing substance misuse. It will help providers and commissioners to ensure that services are appropriate for young people with psychosis and substance misuse problems. We recently published a mental health strategy to improve services for those who are affected by mental health problems. The strategy focuses on the importance of improving the quality and productivity of services and on making efficiency savings that can be reinvested back into the service to improve it still further.
	Over the next five years, we will be putting around £400 million into psychological therapies in all parts of England for young people who are dependent on drugs. Those therapies will include talking therapies, supported where appropriate by family interventions. This issue affects not only individuals but whole families. The strategy will also address issues such as mental ill health and homelessness. Currently, 24,000 young people access specialist support for drug or alcohol misuse and the figures are good—97% of them are seen within three weeks of referral. However, we have to ensure that the quality of support stays high, so that every young person who needs help is given what they need. We will continue to improve the quality of that support and to make sure that it responds to the right people at the right time.
	The letters my hon. Friend read out were moving and evocative. They demonstrate the human story behind this problem. Child and adolescent mental health services have a part to play, but we need to do a great deal more. We need to get the prevention right and we need to get support in when those preventive measures have not helped. He talked about moving from harm reduction to harm prevention and I could not agree more. We need to ensure that young people grow up with the skills they need to make what are sometimes difficult decisions about the choices they face. Addressing legalisation is not enough; we all know about the legal highs. What we need is for young people to make good decisions about the choices they face. I commend my hon. Friend and those who have written to him on sharing those experiences with us today.
	Our position on cannabis use is clear: we will continue to focus on young people because if they are protected right from the start, they will be safer throughout their lives. Not only will their mental health be safeguarded, but their exam results and social development will benefit, their future options will remain open and their chances will remain bright. It is terrible to hear about young people who are struck down by poor decisions that are often made through ignorance. I am sure that position is shared by my hon. Friend and all hon. Members present. Let me assure him that his call for action is being answered in full. I was pleased to hear his complimentary remarks about me so far—I noticed the slight equivocation—and I assure him that I do not think he will be disappointed in the future. I will do all I can in my position to ensure that we do everything possible to protect the health of young people.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.